IN THE COURT OF SH.
GURANG SHARMA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1 st CLASS,
FARIDABAD
IN RE: NACT/2368/2017
M/S B.N. Fibrotech VERSUS Rajesh Aggarwal
Reply to application U/S 91 of Cr.P.C. R/W Section U/S 65B of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 on the behalf of the accused for giving the direction to the ETO-
cum-Assessing Authority, Ward no-5, Faridabad west GST Deptt. for
furnishing the certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH,
1. That the present application is not maintainable in the present form.
2. That the present application is filed by the accused for giving the direction to
the ETO-cum-Assessing Authority for furnishing the certificates U/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereas no witness can be pressurized to submit
the things as per the wishes of applicant/accused. The concerned witness
has deposed before the Hon’ble as per the facts and record. As per law force
or pressure cannot be imposed upon a person/witness to tender the said
certificates or any documents against her wishes, in case the concern has
already deposed accordingly. Hence, deserves to be dismissed on this score
only.
3. That the accused has filed the present application just to linger on the
proceedings at this later stage of arguments and also in order to fill up the
lacuna of his defence and contents. Hence, deserves to be dismissed.
4. That the said witness of Assessing Authority cum ETO has deposed his
version along with documents in presence of applicant/accused as well as
the counsel of applicant/accused, at that stage none from the side
applicant/accused has raised any objection qua production of said
documents or sought any certificates under section 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Hence deserves to be dismissed.
REPLY PARAWISE:
1. The contents as averred in paragraph no.1 of the application are true and
correct.
2. The contents as averred in paragraph no.2 of the application is correct to
the extent that defence witness Arun Kumar was examined on 26 th
October, 2022 and the witness has deposed as according to the wishes of
defence and records present with him. The detailed reply is given in
preliminary objections.
3. That the contents as averred in paragraph no.3 of the application are
wrong, false and incorrect. Moreover, it is the applicant/accused who
availed umpteen opportunities to prove himself as innocent person for
which he examined the witness as according to him. Now, in repeated
manner no more opportunity can be granted to the applicant to fill up the
lacuna and to linger the matter in question. The detailed reply is given in
preliminary objections.
4. The content as averred in paragraph no.4 of the application is legal.
Further, the present application of the applicant/accused is an abuse of
law. The detailed reply is given in preliminary objections.
REPLY TO PRAYER PARA:
That prayer clause is wrong and denied and is refuted its entirety for not
having falling within the actual domain of Legal cannon of Law as per
submission aforesaid in detail by way of preliminary objections, as well as
reply on Merits and as such no application Under Section 91 of CR.P.C. R/W
Section U/S 65B is made out legitimate.
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the application of the complainant
may kindly be dismissed with heavy exemplary costs throughout.
Dated: 29th November, 2022 Answering Respondent
Through
Kunwar Jai Prakash Bhati
(Advocate & Associates)
