The Allahabad High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a Gram Panchayat Secretary in Uttar Pradesh’s Basti district, holding that a penal law enacted subsequently cannot be applied to an incident that occurred before the law came into force. The Court observed that applying a later criminal statute to a past event is contrary to the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava passed the order while allowing a petition filed by a Gram Panchayat Secretary against whom an FIR had been registered under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The controversy arose from allegations that the Panchayat Secretary had failed to deposit ₹8,629 deducted as GST/TDS from payments made for development works undertaken by the Gram Sabha. A complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta, following which an inquiry was conducted.

Based on the inquiry, an FIR was registered on 19 October 2024 under Section 316(5) of the BNS, 2023. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed and summons were issued by the trial court.

The accused challenged the criminal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet, and summoning order.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings on two principal grounds.

The Court noted that the alleged incident pertained to the financial year 2017–18, whereas the FIR was registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a law that was not even in existence at the time of the alleged occurrence.

The Court held that applying a penal statute retrospectively to an earlier incident would violate constitutional protections and is legally impermissible.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that a criminal prosecution under the BNS for an act allegedly committed years before the enactment of the statute could not be sustained.

The Court further observed that the allegations essentially related to the non-deposit of GST/TDS deductions. It noted that the CGST Act, 2017 is a complete and self-contained legislation providing specific provisions and remedies for issues relating to tax deduction, collection, payment, recovery, penalties, and prosecution.

In such circumstances, resorting to general criminal law was considered inappropriate when a special statute already governed the field.

The Court clarified that if authorities believed any violation had occurred, they were at liberty to initiate proceedings under the relevant provisions of the GST law.

The Court also took note of the fact that once the Panchayat Secretary became aware of the issue, the amount was deposited in the government account. Significantly, there was no allegation that the accused had misappropriated the amount for personal benefit or committed any act of embezzlement.

These factors further weighed in favour of quashing the criminal proceedings.

Allowing the petition, the Allahabad High Court set aside the FIR, chargesheet, and summoning order. However, the Court clarified that the competent GST authorities would remain free to take action under the provisions of the GST legislation, if legally warranted.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Cash Deposits Can’t Be Taxed as Unexplained Money When Supported by Earlier Bank Withdrawals: ITAT