PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RATAN LAL AGARWAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/31/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02005520202426 September 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the petitioner to operate his bank accounts except for the disputed amount of Rs. 58,00,000/-. The Magistrate was directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw amounts exceeding the disputed sum.

What were the facts?

The petitioner allegedly collected money from unemployed individuals by promising them jobs and transferred these funds to a trust account. Income tax officials issued a notice, and the trial court dismissed the petitioner's petition, stating the funds were sufficient to compensate victims.

What were the issues?

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner's petition to operate his bank accounts. The dispute revolves around the freezing of funds allegedly collected by promising jobs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Sections 397/401 of CrPC, Sections 438, 442 of BNSS, 2023

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

APHC010107162026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 215/2026 Between: 1. JAGATAP MAHESH KUMAR ALIAS JASHUVA, S/O. MUKKARANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,RESIDENT OF D.NO.501,5 FLOOR, SRI RAMA RESIDENCY,DONKA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA.

...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.Represented by Inspector of police Patamata PS Vijayawada.

...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to The above-named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Petition against the dismissal order of CRL.MP. No.2051 of 2025 In CC. No.3210 of 2023 dated 23.02.2026 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada for the following Grounds Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’), has been filed by the Petitioner /A.1 aggrieved by the dismissal Order dated 23.02.2026 PASSED IN Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025 in CC No.3210 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner and others allegedly collected some amounts from the unemployed persons on the promises that they will provide jobs to them. The petitioner /A.1 transferred the amount from his persona Account lying in Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Tadigapada to the Trust account of Bharatiya Grameena Bahula Rasthra Saahakara Paripathi Sangam as per the particulars given to the Trial Court. The income tax officials issued notice to petitioner/A.1. After considering the material evidence and the documents, the Trial Court by order dated 23.02.2026 dismissed the petition observing that the petitioner allegedly cheated the unemployees on the false promise of providing government jobs and that the amounts present in the accounts of the petitioner is sufficient to distribute to the victims. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner /A.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3.

Heard Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.1 and Smt.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record.

4.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the disputed amount in this matter is Rs.58,00,000/- and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders accordingly.

5.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2051 of 2025 in CC No.3210 of 2023 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada, is hereby set aside. Except the disputed amount of Rs.58,00,000/-, Petitioner/A.1 is permitted to operate his accounts in HDFC and ICICI Bank for the remaining amounts. The Learned Magistrate is directed to permit the petitioner to operate his account and also permit him to withdraw any amounts in excess of the disputed amount of Rs.58,00,000/-, as stated by the prosecution and also the Fixed Deposits lying in the Court.

6.

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 17.03.2026 Mjl/*

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 215 of 2026

17.03.2026 Mjl/*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →