SAKTHI AND CO Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused Nos. 1 and 2 in E.O.C.C. Nos. 247 to 257 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (H. C. I.), Egmore, Madras, have filed these petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid cases and quash the same.

(2.) IN E. O. C. C. No. 247 of 1988, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioners arraying them as accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 276B of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct income-tax at source from the interest paid to the creditors under Section 194A of the INcome-tax Act, 1961, during the financial year ended on March 31, 1983. The allegations in it are briefly as follows :

(3.) I am in total agreement with the observations of Justice Arunachalam. As I have already indicated, the acceptance of such an argument would lead to rather absurd consequences. Even if such contravention is proved by evidence, the petitioners would not be liable at all either under the provisions of the Act which were applicable at the time of launching the prosecution or under the new provisions which came into effect on April 1, 1989. In view of the above, I do not accept the contention put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners. I am clear that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners can definitely survive. From the insertion of the new sections, while omitting the earlier sections referred to above in the Income-tax Act, it is not possible to gather any intention that the Legislature desired that prosecutions which were permissible under Section 276DD of the Act and already initiated before insertion of the new section be erased.