RAMNATH PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 10.9.1991 passed in Complaint Case No. 345/91 corresponding to Trial No. 149/05 pending in the Court of Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s Raghvendra Narayan Singh having its office at Chhatauni, P.O. & P.S. - Motihari, District East Champaran which was engaged in retail sale of country liquor. It is said that the petitioner Ramnath Prasad made a statement on oath before opposite party no. 2 on 25.1.1989 that the auctions taken in his name belong to firm M/s Raghvendra Narayan Singh in terms of clause 16 of the partnership deed. It is alleged that rectified partnership deed was filed on 17.9.89 in which clause 16 of the original partnership deed was deleted to mean that the investments made by the partners would be treated as investments made by them alone. It is further alleged that the petitioner had stated that his statement on oath on 25.1.1989 was wrong and auction taken in his name on 23.3.1988 does not belong to the firm M/s Raghvendra Narayan Singh. Further the investment in two shops as mentioned in the complaint were also not satisfactorily explained before the opposite party no. 2. The complaint petition was accordingly filed after obtaining sanction from opposite party no.1 under Section 279 (1) of the Income Tax Act (in short as the 'Act '). The Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Muzaffarpur by the impugned order dated 10.9.1991 took cognizance of the offence under Section 277 of the Act. Learned counsel in support of his argument raised the following points: - (i) that the amount Rs. 2,01,0007 - was contributed by seven partners and it was not the exclusive investment of the petitioner; (ii) that the order of assessment which is the basis of the complaint is an appealable order and the appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner of Appeal and therefore, the present complaint till the disposal of appeal should not proceed with; (iii) that even the order passed by the court of appeal is appealable before the Tribunal and in case the Tribunal allowed the matter then the whole prosecution would fall.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned standing counsel supported the impugned order.