Bimal Poddar Alias Bimal Kumar Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:31858
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 490 of 2017
------
Bimal Poddar @ Bimal Kumar Poddar, S/o Sri Brij Mohan
Poddar, R/o B.T. Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali,
Dist.-Ranchi
.... …. Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party
The State of Jharkhand

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepankar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

-----------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
J UDGMENT
C.A.V. on 25.08.2026 Pronounced on 30/10/2026

1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and
Learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment
th
dated 10 February, 2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 64 of 2015 by
the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi, whereby and
whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment
and order of conviction and sentence of the present petitioner
th
dated 24 March, 2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in
G.R. No. 983/1996, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has
been convicted for the offence under Section 49(2)b and 49(3)d of
Bihar Finance Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. of one year and
fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 49(2)b of Bihar Finance Act and
S.I. of two years and find of Rs. 1500/- under section 49(3)d of
Bihar Finance Act.

2026:JHHC:31858

Factual Matrix:-
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this case is that Assistant
Commercial Tax Commissioner, Special Area, Ranchi lodged a
detailed a written complaint with Kotwali P.S under letter No
202 dated 18.04.1996 stating inter alia that the Government of
Bihar has taken a decision to enquire as to whether the
Provisions of Bihar Finance Act 1981 and Central Sales Tax Act
1956 are duly compiled with in case of purchase and sale of
Vanaspati oil. Accordingly, a team was formed under
chairmanship of Sri A. Haidar, the then Commercial Tax
Assistant Commissioner, special Area, Ranchi and Sri Deepak
Sharan Sinha, Commercial Tax Officer, Aditiyapur Circle,
Jamshedpur were sent to Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Utter
Pradesh to check regarding Proforma -F and sale/purchase of
Vanaspati and edible oil by the manufacturer and business
men of out of the State. The above team collected the data from
(i) Sharawasri Purohit & Co., New Cotton Market Nagpur,
(ii)Sharwasri Rajadihraj Industries Ltd. Shiwani M.P, (iii)
Sharwasri Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd U.P, (iv) Sharwasri Modi
Vanaspati Ltd. Modinagar U.P, (v) Sharwasri Kishannand and
Co. and Oil Industries, Gaziyabad and Proforma - F submitted
by them regarding articles sold and prices mentioned therein.
Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner of Gaya area also
submitted data and Form – F detail. All those data and
information were inquired into by Sri Pradeep Kumar,

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
2

2026:JHHC:31858

Commercial Tax officer, Special area, Ranchi and compared
with the data contained in Form - F submitted by the then
partners of Sarwasri Jokhiram Parmeshwar Lal. The partners
are Sri Vimal Kumar- present accused/appellant, Damodar
and Sri Raj Kumar Agarwal. It is alleged that several
differences were found in the Form- F submitted by the
partners of aforesaid Sarwasri Jokhiram Parmeshwar Lal in
comparison to the prices declared in Form - F of aforesaid
outside of the State manufactures and business men. It became
clear that in the year 1989-90 and 1990-91 the above Ranchi
business men suppressed the sale amount of Rs. 12,45,180.00/-
and did not pay the dues sale tax with mala-fide intention to
evade tax.

4. They also submitted their statutory form - F fraudulently and
under forged practice. It is alleged that the transaction table of
impugned Sarwasri Jokhiram Parmeshwar Lal was also
checked and it was found that in the statutory form - F correct
name of foods imported was mentioned but to avoid tax
wrong and false undervalued entries were made in transaction
table with the wrong name of goods. It was also mentioned
that upon Vanaspati/dalda the tax rate is higher than the
mustard oil. The firm of the accused showed mustard oil in
place of dalda/vanaspati oil and avoided taxes. In the year
1990-91 a sale amount of Rs. 72.91,200/- was suppressed and
thereby avoided payment of tax of Rs. 7,32,682/-. In the year

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
3

2026:JHHC:31858

1990-91 the firm of the accused used form - F for Amit
Vanaspati Co. Ltd showing price as Rs. 5,72,200.00/- and used
form - F to Sarwasri Modi Vanaspati manufactures, Modinagar
showing price as Rs. 12,74,200.00/- whereas those were not
issued in their favour at all from the concerned Regional
Commercial Tax Office.

Thereby in the year 1990-91 edible oil for a sum of Rs.
18,49,400.00/- was imported upon such form-F which were not
at all issued by the concerned Regional Commercial Tax office
and thereby the firm of the accused evaded tax of Rs.
1,86,604.00/-.
In the year 1990-91 a total of Rs. 94,31,600/- sale value
was suppressed. The company of the accused thereby did not
pay the correct sale taxes and misused the provisions of Bihar
Finance Act and also misused the statutory Proforma F and
provisions of Central Sales Tax Act.
5. On the basis of above written typed complaint, F.I.R. being
Kotwali P.S case no 194/1994 dated 08.04.1996 for the offence
under Section 49(2)b and 49(3)d of Bihar Finance Act and
420/406/467/468/471/474/379/120-B of IPC was lodged
against present accused

6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheeted was
submitted for the aforesaid offence against the accused.
7. The accused denied from the charges leveled against him and
claimed to be tried.

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
4

2026:JHHC:31858


8. In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by
the prosecution :-
P.W.-1 Brij Bihari Ram (I.O.)
P.W.-2 Gunu Sindhu Dorrya Guru
P.W.-3 Sanjay Kr. Srivastava
P.W.-4 Philip Toppo
P.W.-5 Pradeep Kumar
P.W.-6 Ashok Kumar Sinha

9. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following
documentary evidence has also been adduced by the
prosecution:-
Ext.-1 Endorsement on typed statement of FIR
Ext.-2 Formal F.I.R.
Ext.-3 Attested Xerox copy of list of form-F issued to
the firm of the accused along with attested Xerox copy of
comparison chart.
Ext.-4 Production-cum-seizure list containing sign of
informant
Ext.-5 Self attested Xerox copy of transaction table of
firm of accused with his signature
Ext.-6 Typed petition
Ext.-7 Sanction order
10. The prosecution has also adduced the following material
exhibits:-
M. Ext.-I Proforma Form D 145345

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
5

2026:JHHC:31858

M. Ext.-II Corresponding sale sheet of above
M. Ext.-III Form F No. D 145336
M. Ext.-IV Corresponding sale sheet of above
M. Ext.-V Form F No. D 145312
M. Ext.-VI Corresponding sale sheet of above
M. Ext.-VII Form F No. D 145335
M. Ext.-VIII Corresponding sale sheet of above
M. Ext.-IX Form F No. D 145356
M. Ext.-X Form F No. D 145353
M. Ext.-XI Form F No. D 145352
M. Ext.-XII Form F Eight in number
M. Ext.-XIII Form F Two in number
11. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the defence rather pleaded his innocence
and false implication.

12. The learned trial Court after evaluating the unimpeachable
evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted from the
charges for the offence under I.P.C. but convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Bihar Finance Act and

sentenced him, accordingly.

13. The convict preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate
Court (Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi) which was
also dismissed.



Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
6

2026:JHHC:31858

Submissions on behalf of petitioner: -
14. Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following

points:-
 The main thrust of the petitioner is that for prosecuting
under Bihar Finance Act, sanction is required in terms
of Section 49(5) by the Commissioner but in the present
case, sanction was granted by Joint Commissioner who

was also not examined as a witness.
 The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court has
failed to appreciate that no material evidence has been
adduced to substantiate the charge against the
petitioner alone whereas it is admitted that there were
other partners of the firm also. The prosecution has not
proved that the present petitioner was responsible for
day to day work and carrying out the affairs of the
firm alone. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of
the petitioner is not legally sustainable.

It is further submitted that the main I.O. (second
I.O.)who has conducted considerable part of the
investigation has not been examined, therefore, several
material contradictions and discrepancies crept in the
evidence of witnesses, could not get explained and
caused serious prejudice to the defnece which has

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
7

2026:JHHC:31858

occasioned failure of justice and the impunged
judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is
based upon conjecture and surmises which are liable to
be set aside allowing this revision.
Submissions on behalf of the State:-

15. Per contra, Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of
learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court on merits by
stating that both the Courts below have very wisely and aptly
gone through the record of the case and rightly found the
petitioner guilty. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner was responsible for day to day work of the firm
and it is also settled principal that every partners acts with
each as an agent. There is no plea of the defence that he was
not active partner in carrying out the business of the firm and
doing all other business activities including the submission of
sales tax etc. Similarly, the question of sanction accorded by
joint commissioner also does not affect the judgment passed
by the learned trial Court and appellate Court with
concurrent findings. The petitioner has failed to point out as
to how failure of justice has occasioned in this case due to
non-examination of second I.O. and sanction accorded by
joint commissioner for prosecution of the accused. There is no
legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of the
petitioner challenging the concurrent findings of the learned

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
8

2026:JHHC:31858

trial Court as well as appellate Court. There is no merit in this
revision, which is fit to be dismissed.
Analysis, reasons and decision :
16. I have gone through the record of case along with impugned
judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as
trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
respective parties.

17. The sole point for consideration in this revision is as to
“whether the conviction and sentence of the petitioner suffers
from any error of law, calling for any interference in this
revision?
18. Perusal of the material exhibits reveals that there are some
discrepancies with regard to goods which are clearly
apparent and these discrepancies with regard to goods has
been intentionally made to evade commercial tax. The learned
appellate Court in para-12 of its judgment has very minutely
gone through the documentary evidence brought on record
and has mentioned each of the discrepancies found with
regard to goods to evade the commercial tax which makes it
clear that the firm of the accused has played foul play to
evade commercial tax which is punishable under Bihar
Finance Act.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has
held that :

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
9

2026:JHHC:31858

12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with
the power to call for and examine the records of
an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying
itself as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case. The object of
this provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error and it may not be appropriate for
the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the
face of it bears a token of careful consideration
and appear to be in accordance with law. If one
looks into the various judgments of this Court, it
emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be
invoked where the decisions under challenge are
grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the
provisions of law, the
finding recorded is based on no evidence, material
evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative.
Each case would have to be determined on its own
merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the
revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very
limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine
manner.

20. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I find no legal
substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding the guilt of the present petitioner in the
concurrent findings of the learned Courts below. Accordingly,
this revision stands dismissed.

21. Consequently, the bail granted to the petitioner vide order
dated 19.03.2018 during pendency of this revision, is hereby

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
10

2026:JHHC:31858

cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned
Trial Court within two months from the date of this Judgment
to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded to him
by the learned trial Court, failing which, the learned trial Court
shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the
petitioner for sustaining the remaining period of sentence

awarded to him.

22. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

23. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial Court record be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
Date:- 30/10/2026
Basant / -
NAFR
Uploaded On: 30/10/2026

Cr. Rev. No. 490 of 2017
11