Sunil Dath Vs. State of Kerala

Sunil Dath vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 04, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1154229

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1154229
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew
Decided On: Jul 04, 2014
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil Dath

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....to the subscribers that they had the authority to do so; and they failed to pay the amounts which have been paid by the subscribers. it is submitted that the 2nd petitioner is not at all involved in the business of the 1st petitioner and she has not committed any offence. it is further submitted that the 1st petitioner has paid the amount to the subscribers. b.a. no. 4762 of 2014 -2- 4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.5. the 1st petitioner is said to be the director of the company which conducted the chitty. the 2nd petitioner is not a director. in view of this fact, i am inclined to grant the prayer of the 2nd petitioner. it is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner's company had authority to conduct only one chitty, but it conducted about six number of chitties. it means that it was doing illegal business. it was on the representation that the company had authority to conduct six number of chitties, people subscribed to it. prima facie, section 420 of ipc is attracted. so i am not inclined to grant the prayer of the 1st petitioner. in the result this application is allowed in part. the 2nd petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with b.a. no. 4762 of 2014 -3- two solvent sureties each for the like sum if she is arrested by the police in connection with this case. she shall appear before the investigating officer if he is so required by him in writing. the application is dismissed so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. sd/- k. abraham mathew, judge //true copy// p.a. to judge jjj

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE4H DAY OF JULY201413TH ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4762 of 2014 () --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 354/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. SUNIL DATH S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED46YEARS GOKULAM (MEETHALE VEETIL) HOUSE, VATTOLI BAZAR P.O. KOZHIKODE.

2. PRIYA SUNIL DATH W/O. SUNIL DATH, AGED37YEARS GOKULAM (MEETHALE VEETIL) HOUSE, VATTOLI BAZAR P.O KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHARAM.P SMT.REKHA ARAVIND RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -31 THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C. RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0407-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: das K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

------------------------------------------ B.A. No. 4762 of 2014 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 354/2014 of Balussery Police Station, which has been registered for offences under sections 120B and 420 of IPC, section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act and section 4 of Chit Funds Act.

3. It is alleged that though they had authority to conduct one chitty, they conducted six number of chitties. They represented to the subscribers that they had the authority to do so; and they failed to pay the amounts which have been paid by the subscribers. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner is not at all involved in the business of the 1st petitioner and she has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner has paid the amount to the subscribers. B.A. No. 4762 of 2014 -2- 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The 1st petitioner is said to be the Director of the Company which conducted the chitty. The 2nd petitioner is not a Director. In view of this fact, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the 2nd petitioner. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner's Company had authority to conduct only one chitty, but it conducted about six number of chitties. It means that it was doing illegal business. It was on the representation that the Company had authority to conduct six number of chitties, people subscribed to it. Prima facie, section 420 of IPC is attracted. So I am not inclined to grant the prayer of the 1st petitioner. In the result this application is allowed in part. The 2nd petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with B.A. No. 4762 of 2014 -3- two solvent sureties each for the like sum if she is arrested by the Police in connection with this case. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer if he is so required by him in writing. The application is dismissed so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Sunil Dath vs State of Kerala Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew