Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Company For Not Furnishing Statistical Data, Says It Impacts Nation's Economic Policy

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a company M/s Masturlal (PVT) Ltd seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against it under the provisions of the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 for non-furnishing of statistical data, to the Government.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said,

“Non-furnishing of data by a company, though may seem to be a trivial offence but in effect, snowballs into an indelible impact on the planning of the economic policies of a nation, as the development goals of a nation becomes stacks. Therefore, statistical data, inter alia, becomes the life blood of economic policy making of a nation.”

Court said the Act was promulgated to facilitate collection of statistics for the purpose of information from a limited segment of an industrial sector for framing policies, meeting challenges arising out of liberalisation, globalisation and certain issues in a market driven economy in various sectors. Therefore, collection of statistical data is absolutely imperative for planning the economic policies.

The Company which is into manufacturing of Technical units of Textiles had approached the Court calling in question proceedings initiated in 2016 and pending before the Magistrate Court in Bengaluru, registered for offences punishable under Sections 15(2), 19, 22 and 23 of the Act.

Initially, in the year 2012, the proceedings were initiated as the company failed to submit the annual statistical data that had to be submitted for the year 2010-11, to the respondent. The company had then pleaded guilty and paid a fine amount of 6,000, on 28-05-2013. However, it did not furnish the required data therefore the subsequent proceedings were initiated against the company.

The company argued that once having been charged for an offence, it would not be open to the respondent to initiate proceedings on the same allegation as it would amount to double jeopardy.

The Government of India opposed the plea saying once the petitioner had pleaded guilty of the offence, it is the obligation after pleading guilty that would commence under Section 15(2) of the Act.

The bench referring to Section 15 of the Act and noted that subsection (2) thereof mandates that conviction of a person or a company for an offence shall not relieve him or it of the obligations under sub-section (1) of Section 15 and if after expiry of fourteen days from the date of conviction, he or it still fails to give required particulars or continues to neglect or refuses to fill in and supply the particulars or to answer the question, he or it will still be punishable with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or in the case of company, it may extend to `5,000/- for each day after the first during which the failure continues.

Following which it remarked, “The rigor of the statute cannot be whittled down or diluted to suit the convenience of any person. Any supposed difficulty would provide no justification to accept the rigour of the statute, any interpretative departure from the plain words of the statute on an argument of difficulty would be dangerous. It is the statute and implication of the statute that would run for all time to come, unless amended.”

Rejecting the argument of double jeopardy raised by the petitioner the bench said, “It is not a separate proceeding taken in general parlance for the second time for the same offence. The proceedings are initiated under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 operates in a different circumstance and on continued violation of sub-section (1) of Section 15, sub-section (2) of Section 15 kicks in. Therefore, the two on the first blush may seem identical. But, they are different penalties for different actions.”

Court said in the teeth of admitted fact that the petitioner has not furnished statistical data even till the date of registration of the complaint, it is undoubtedly guilty albeit prima facie for the action of non-furnishing of such statistical data.

Agreeing with the averment made by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation that it attaches considerable importance on coverage and quality aspect of statistics released in the country, the bench held,

“In the teeth of admitted fact that the petitioner has not furnished statistical data as required under the mandate of the Act, the other mandate i.e., the penalty will follow as a consequence. It is for the petitioner to put up such defence before the concerned Court where the proceedings are in an advanced stage as the criminal case is of the year 2015, and the present petition is preferred on 23-05-2022, seven years after the commencement of proceedings. In the teeth of the mandate of the statute and its imperative need, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the impugned proceedings.”

Finally it directed the concerned court to conclude proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Case Title: M/s Masturlal (Pvt) Ltd And Government of India

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4639 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

Date of Order: 28-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate A N Gangadharaiah for Petitioner.

Deputy Solicitor General of India H Shanthi Bhushan for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order