QUALITY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three cases have been filed by the same petitioners against the same opposite parties. As a common question of law arises, the three applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment,

(2.) IT appears that a complaint (annexure-2) in each of the cases was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward "B", Special Investigation Circle, Patna, against the petitioners making allegations that they have tried to evade income-tax by filing returns showing false and low income. IT was alleged that a raid was conducted at the premises of the petitioners and some account books were seized, which revealed that the turnover of the petitioners' business was much larger than shown in the income-tax return. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated and then the petitioners were issued notice to file fresh returns under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Ultimately, the assessment order was passed assessing the petitioners at a higher income than shown in the earlier income-tax return. The assessment order was upheld up to the appellate stage. The complaint had been filed against the petitioners for committing offences punishable under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. An application was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial court for discharging them on the ground that petitioner No. 1 is a firm and it cannot be punished with sentence of imprisonment as provided under the Income-tax Act under those sections. IT was further asserted that as the firm cannot be prosecuted and sentenced, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who are partners of petitioner No. 1-firm would also be not liable to be prosecuted and punished. The learned trial court rejected the said application with the observation that there is sufficient ground for framing of charge, as the complainant's evidence before the charge has already been recorded, Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the cognizance order dated March 29, 1984, and the order dated July 23, 1986, rejecting the petition of the petitioners for discharge. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Cases Nos. 332(M) of 1984, Tr. No. 241 of 1986, 331(M) of 1984, Tr. No. 240 of 1986 and 330(M) of 1984, Tr. No. 238 of 1986 were pending in the Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffar-pur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the cases are now pending in the court of the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Patna.

(3.) HOWEVER, such circumstance exists only in respect of Complaint Case No. 332(M) of 1984 and in the remaining two cases the date of offence is after October 1, 1975. Therefore, the complaint could be maintainable in those two cases for punishment of offence under Section 27GC, if the ingredients of the offence are made out.