Case Law Details
Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act.
Facts-
Complainant Deepak Guleria, was running the business in the name and style of M/s Deepak Business Communication and had taken CST number in the year 2005 from the Excise and Taxation Department, during the year 2010. He was directed by ETO Ms. Nirmal and accused Neeraj Kumar to file returns yearly and a notice was also issued to him. He talked to ETO as well as the accused and informed them that he had not brought any goods from outside, therefore, his returns were nil. However, ETO Nirmal and the accused told him that they would charge Rs.500/- per year irrespective of the fact whether any goods were brought from outside or not.
The Investigating Officer explained pre-trap proceedings by preparing solution of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder, then the solutions were destroyed and some powder were kept in matchboxes, which were sealed in a cloth parcel. The currency notes which were handed over by the complainant to the police, were treated with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter were handed over to the complainant with a direction to pay the same to ETO Nirmal and the accused on their demand. The police also recorded the number of currency notes on a memo.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
