JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three miscellaneous petitions are directed against the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, dated August 17, 1991, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since a common question is involved in all these three petitions, for the sake of convenience, I dispose of them by this common order.

(2.) THE accused petitioners are partners of Messrs. Champalal Jainarain firm. A partnership deed was executed consisting of four partners, three major and one minor. THE partners are Jainarain, Purshottam, Ram Kishore and Jugal Kishore. THE allegation was levelled against Champalal also, who happened to be the father of Jainarain, Purshottam and Ram Kishore. Champalal has expired during the pendency of the proceedings. THE partnership deed has shown four partners but profit of the firm in these years have been divided among five partners and later on it was corrected also that profit of the firm is divided among four partners. THE income-tax return to this effect has been filed. On scrutiny, the Income-tax Officer found that the partnership firm shows that there are four partners. Ramniwas was not a partner in the partnership deed, but while returns were filed, initially the income of the partnership firm for the assessment year 1967-68 have been distributed among five partners. According to the Income-tax Officer, this is a wrong statement of the fact showing the contrary distribution of income of the firm among five partners than the partners shown in the partnership deed. THErefore, the firm was treated as an unregistered firm and assessed as such. Not only that, the prosecution also lodged against the partners for offences under Section 277 read with Section 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, and complaint to this effect was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, in December, 1977. THE charges were framed in 1985 and so far only three prosecution witnesses have been examined.

(3.) WHILE dropping the proceedings, the court has to keep in mind whether the delay was on account of the accused petitioners or on account of the prosecution or the court. At the same time, the gravity and seriousness of the offence have to be kept in mind and also the factor that after completion of trial, there is every possibility of conviction in the case. All these facts are relevant to be taken into account before dropping the proceedings. But when there is no fault on account of the petitioners, they cannot be dragged in trial for an unlimited period.