CHINNASWAMY AGENCIES Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE a common question of law arises out of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions, they could be disposed of by one common order. Hence I pass a common order.

(2.) IN these three miscellaneous petitions, the petitioners are common. They request this court to call for the records pending in different C.Cs. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that whether it is loan or deposit has to be decided at the time of trial. Even in the complaint, at two places, it has been referred to as a deposit whereas in paragraph 7 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the accused company has violated section 269T by repayment of loans otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. He has further submitted that it is a matter which has to be decided in the trial court after letting in evidence as to whether it is a loan or deposit. As far as the other ground is concerned, regarding the reasonable cause, as described in the Act, show-cause notice has been issued to the accused/petitioners and they have also replied to the said show-cause notice, and an application of reasonable cause presupposed to that show-cause notice (sic), which has been done in this present case. Under these circumstances, he argued that it is not a case where this court should interfere by invoking its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.