BANWARI LAL AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Banwari Lal Agarwal, proprietor, Saraswati Pipe Company, Kanpur, the petitioner above named has filed the aforesaid four petitions for quashing the Criminal Complaints Nos. 99 of 1988, 94 of 1988, 97 of 1988 and 98 of 1988, filed by the Union of India through Sri V.B. Mishra, ITO, Circle 1 (5), Kanpur, for his criminal prosecution under S. 276C of the IT Act, 1961.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the cases are that the petitioner was carrying on business in the purchase and sale of steel tubes and fittings at Kanpur. On 21st May, 1980, a search was conducted by the IT officials at the business and residential premises of the petitioner. During the said search it was found that the petitioner had omitted to record certain transactions in his account books. The petitioner claimed that with a view to purchase peace and to avoid protracted litigation with the Department he was advised to settle the dispute with the then CIT, Kanpur. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered a sum of Rs. 35,000 to be added towards the income for the asst. year 1980 81, Rs. 20,000 for the asst. year 1979 80. For the asst. year 1978 79 the petitioner filed return of income showing an income of Rs. 35,000. His income was, however, assessed to Rs. 56,254, after adding back certain items towards the depreciation and for low withdrawal. The Department maintained that since the petitioner filed wrong and belated returns, he was guilty of committing offence punishable under S. 276C of the IT Act. Hence, four separate criminal complaints were filed by the then ITO before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur, and the petitioner was sought to be punished. Feeling aggrieved by the said criminal complaints, the petitioner filed the aforesaid four criminal miscellaneous applications before this Court under S. 482 of the CrPC, and prayed for quashing of the said complaints. Since common question of law and fact were involved in all these petitions, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE provisions of sub s. (2) of S. 279 read as under :