9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated March 25, 1991, annexure P 2, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, vide which the petitioners were summoned in this case. - After perusing the allegations made in the complaint as well as the averments made in the petition, I find that there are no allegations against petitioners - A perusal of this petition shows that the other partners were responsible for the work an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, took a loan of Rs. 1,20,000 on different dates from two persons, namely, Angrej Singh and Smt. Ajit Kaur. That amount was taken in cash and not through "account payee cheques/bank drafts." Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioners committed an offence punishable under section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioners were summoned by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership concern, Dua Rice Mills, Fazilka. Thus, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint against the aforesaid persons is not maintainable. He relies upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Parmeet Singh Sawney v. Dinesh Verma [1988] 169 ITR 5, to contend that in the complaint, the prosecution should have mentioned in what manner every partner was in charge an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the averments made in the petition, I find that there are no allegations against petitioners Nos. 5 and 6, namely, Gurdial Singh and Smt. Ajit Kaur, wife of Jit Singh, who were residents of U.P. and Rajasthan. A perusal of this petition shows that the other partners were responsible for the work and conduct of the partnership concern, Dua Rice Mills. In this view of the matter, I quash the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
