STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus NARAYAN K. PATODIA

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 06-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
A 
v. 
NARAYAN K. PATODIA 
APRIL 6, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 4-Sales Tax Bureau of Inves-
tigation found the respondent guilty of fraud after an investigation and filed 
an FIR with the police which was challenged by the respondent-Held : No 
bar in statute to department filing FIR; all offences under any law to be 
C 
investigated and inquired into in accordance with the provisions of the Code 
except where the applicable enactment prescribes a different/contrary proce-
dure from the Code. 
Section 482-lnherent powers of the High Court to be used only for 
furthering ends of justice, to give effect to orders made under the Code and to 
D 
prevent misuse. 
West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1994, Section 7-No bar to getting aid of other 
legally constituted agencies to investigate or pass the investigation to the 
police-Section 88( 1 )(b) (6) and (7)-West Bengal Sales Tax (Registration and 
Turnover) Rules 1957, Indian Penal Code-Sections 403, 409, 465, 471, 419 
E 
and 420 read with S.120B. 
The Sales Tax authorities, suspecting the respondent of defrauding 
the State of sales tax, conducted an investigation through their Bureau of 
Investigation. On finding the respondent guilty, an FIR was lodged with 
the police. The respondent challenged this and the High Court quashed 
the FIR relying on Section 4 CrPC., holding that when a special law 
provided for a special procedure for dealing with the offences under that 
StiJ.tute, only that procedure could be followed; that under the West Bengal 
Sales Tax Act, report to be submitted to Commissioner of Sales Tax, but 
no complaint could be lodged. The State has appealed against this judg-
ment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act empowers 
the State Government to constitute a Bureau of Investigation for discharg-
F 
G 
ing the functions referred to in sub-section (3) thereof. It empowers the 
H 
1013 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Bureau to carry on the investigation or hold enquiry into any case or 
alleged or suspected case of evasion of tax or malpractice created thereof 
, 
, and send a report of it to the Commissioner. A reading of Section 7 makes 
it clear that creation of Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of dis-
charging the function envisaged in sub-section (3) which, of course, in-
B 
eludes investigation also. But there is nothing in Section 7 that such inves-
tigation can be carried on "only" by the Bureau and not any other investi-
gation agency. It is open to the Bureau to get the assistance of any other 
legally constituted investigating agency for effectively inquiring into all 
the ramifications of the offence. As in this case if offences falling under the 
Indian Penal Code or any other enactment are also detected during the 
c 
course of investigation conducted by the Bureau there is no inhibition to 
pass over the investigation to the regular police. (1020-C-E] 
2. The consequences of the interpretation by the High Court would 
be that if the person who commits the offence under Section 88 of the Sales 
D 
Tax Act also commits other serious offences falling under Indian Penal 
Code as part of the same transaction neither the regular police nor any 
special police force nor even the Central Bureau of Investigation can be 
authorised to conduct investigation. The accused in such cases would then 
be well ensconed insulated from the legal consequences of proper and 
E 
effective investigation. Criminal justice would be the casualty then. The 
High Court has committed serious error in quashing the FIR. The result 
of quashing the FIR had rendered the allegations of offences made against 
a person to remain consigned in stupor perennially. Hence, instead of 
achieving ends of criminal justice, the impugned order would achieve the 
reverse of it. (1020-F-G; 1021-C] 
'\ 
F 
3. By lodging the FIR alone no investigation is conducted by the 
police. Itis the first step towards starting investigation by the police. If High 
Court was of the opinion that investigation was to be conducted by the 
Bureau then also there was no need to quash the FIR. (1020-H; 1021-A] 
G 
4. Inherent powers of the High Court as recognised in Section 482 
CrPC are reserved to be used "to give effect to any orders under the Code, 
or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to sec~re the 
, ,_ 
ends of justice." It is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.