MOHAN SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the complaint annexure P1 dated January 25, 1991, filed under Section 276DD read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and order dated March 25, 1991, annexure P2, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide which the petitioners were summoned in this case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint annexure P1, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, alleging that the petitioners, who are running the firm in the name of Dua Rice Mills at Fazilka, took a loan of Rs. 1,20,000 on different dates from two persons, namely, Angrej Singh and Smt. Ajit Kaur. That amount was taken in cash and not through "account payee cheques/bank drafts." Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioners committed an offence punishable under Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(3.) MR. S.C. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that as per the allegations made in the complaint, apart from the aforesaid allegations being there against Mohan Singh, there are no other allegations against any of the partners. It is pointed out by learned counsel that Mohan Singh had filed income-tax return on behalf of the said firm and it was Mohan Singh, who had been prosecuting his case before the Income-tax Officer. Apart from the above, petitioner No. 5 is an old person, whereas petitioner No. 5 is residing at Shah-jahanpur, U. P., whereas petitioner No. 6 is resident of Udeypur in Rajasthan. It is contended that none of these persons are involved in any manner in the running of partnership concern, Dua Rice Mills, Fazilka. Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint against the aforesaid persons is not maintainable. He relies upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Parmeet Singh Sawney v. Dinesh Verma [1988] 169 ITR 5, to contend that in the complaint, the prosecution should have mentioned in what manner every partner was in charge and responsible for the business. MR. Chhabra contends that in the present complaint, there are no other allegations against any of the partners.