9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtaining to the prosecution of the petitioners under section 276B of the Income-tax Act relating to the assessment year 1971-72 (accounting year 1970-71). The other set of petitions is in respect of the prosecutions initiated against the petitioners under section 278B of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1974-75 (accounting year 1973-74). The persons who are being prosecuted in the aforesaid prosecution are the petitioners, Harjeet Kaur, Smt. Veera Wali, jaspal Singh, Inderjit Singh, Amrik Singh and Parmeet Singh. The brief allegations on the basis of which prosecutions have been initiated are that the petitioners are partners of a firm, M/s. Eagle Instalments, and at the time of commission of the offence, they were in charge of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly seems to suggest that the scope of section 482 in that view of the matter is limited and even if carrying on with the complaint results in grave injustice and abuse of the process of the court, the court should refrain from interfering. There is no need for me to refer to a catena of case-law on the subject. But the fact remains that if prosecution degenerates into persecution, this court cannot sit is a helpless spectator. It is the bounden duty of this court to interfere if there is a palpable and grave injustice and if it finds that the process of the court is being abused. Adverting to the first contention of Mr. 1). R. Sethi, it be stated that section 278B of the Income-tax Act came, into existence for the first time on October 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted with the running of the business of the firm. To me that appears to be a very reasonable approach. It is thus clear that the partners of a firm who at the time of commission of offence were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm could alone be prosecuted. Section 278B of the Income-tax Act has no retrospective effect. It will be operative from the date it came into force. In any case, this section was not in existence during the assessment year 1971-72 or 1974-75 much less during the accounting year 1970-71 or 1973-74 when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The petitioners before me are the partners and not the firm. The firm, of course, cannot challenge the prosecution. The position thus is that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Parmeet Singh, petitioner, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the firm at the time of commission of offence. This is absolutely a mis-statement Of fact and that clearly goes to show that the respondents have mechanically reproduced in the complaint the wording of section 278B with a view to meet the requirement of law but without caring to find out whether this statement is true or not. That shows that the petitioner, Parmeet Singh, is being prosecuted on a false allegation and this is because of the mis-statement that at the time of commission of offence he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the firm. Even otherwise, mere reproduction of the expression used ill section 278B in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
