9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Quashing of criminal proceedings based on a complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer. - Failure to deposit deducted interest amount in the account of the Central Government. - Jurisdiction of the High Court to quash proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. - Consideration of charges against sleeping partners in a partnership firm. Analysis: The judgment dealt with a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated based on a complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer against a partnership firm and its partners for failing to deposit the deducted interest amount in the Central Government's account. The Income-tax Officer alleged that the firm had deducted interest but failed to deposit the required amount within the stipulated time, constituting an offense under the Income-tax Act. The Court noted that cognizance had been taken, witnesses had been examined, and charges had been framed in the case. The petitioners contended that the delay in filing the petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was due to avoiding explanations regarding the delay. However, the Court emphasized that at the stage of cognizance, the court only needs to ascertain if a prima facie case exists. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the principles for framing charges, emphasizing the need for grave suspicion against the accused and the judge's role in evaluating evidence objectively. Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court cited legal opinions suggesting that such jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases involving glaring defects in procedure or manifest errors of law leading to a miscarriage of justice. In this case, the Court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order or quash the proceedings, given the facts and evidence presented. The petitioners also raised an issue concerning the justification for framing charges against sleeping partners in the firm. The Court noted that this issue had not been considered by the trial court, and since witnesses had already been examined, it was not appropriate to delve into this matter in a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court suggested that such objections could be raised and argued during the final decision on the complaint filed by the Income-tax Department. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order or quash the proceedings based on the facts and legal considerations presented during the case.
|
