9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of criminal case proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code based on the allegations of an offence under section 276E/278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Judge S.B. Sakrikar of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh pertained to a petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No.10 of 1986 in the court of the ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore. The case involved allegations against the petitioners and deceased partners of a firm for an offence under section 276E/278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contended that the complaint lacked specific averments that they were in charge and responsible for the firm's conduct at the time of the alleged offence, relying on precedents from various High Courts. The judge examined the submissions and referred to judgments from other High Courts, emphasizing the requirement to establish that the accused were in charge and responsible for the firm's conduct to prosecute under sections 276, 277, or 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Notably, the Patna High Court held that without specific averments regarding the accused's role in the firm's operations at the time of the alleged offence, prosecution is not sustainable. This principle was reiterated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court in their respective judgments. Upon reviewing the complaint and evidence, the judge found that no specific averments were made regarding the petitioners' responsibility for the firm's conduct at the time of the alleged offence. Additionally, there was a significant delay in the trial proceedings, which could lead to a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Considering these factors, the judge concluded that continuing the prosecution would be a waste of public time and money, amounting to an abuse of the court's process. Consequently, the judge allowed the petition, quashing Criminal Case No.10 of 1986 and its proceedings against the applicants under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without imposing any costs. In summary, the judgment focused on the necessity of establishing the accused's role in the firm's operations at the time of the alleged offence to sustain prosecution under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judge emphasized the importance of specific averments in complaints and evidence to support criminal charges. Additionally, the judge highlighted the right to a speedy trial and the consequences of undue delays in legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the quashing of the criminal case against the applicants in the interest of justice and efficient use of public resources.
|
