Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicants M/s S.P. & Company and another, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the Union of India.
(2.) This application has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 164/90 under section 276-E of Income Tax Act and also the order dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure No.3) passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 447 of 1998 confirming the order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar dated 27.8.1998 in Criminal Case No. 164 of 1990, Union of India v. M/s. S.P. & Company and two others under section 276 Income Tax Act, 1961.
(3.) The criminal complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 3 under section 276-R of Income Tax Act, 196; on 29.3.1990, which is numbered as Criminal Case No. 164 of 1990. A copy of the corn plaint has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the application. 1he'allegations as narrated in the complaint are that the applicants contravened the provisions of section 269 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1988-89 whereby the deposit of more than Rs. 10,000/- in cash was made to the Firm M/s. Kailash Nath Amar Nath & and Company in lieu of Stock-in-trade. The allegation in the complaint was that in view of section 269-T (1), the payment cannot be made in cash in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act. Section 269-T (1) is enumerated below: "Section 269-T (1) No Company (including a banking company), co-operative society or firm shall repay to any person any deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft where the amount of the deposit, or where the amount of the deposit is to be repaid together with any interest, the aggregate of the amount of the deposit and such interest, is ten thousand rupees or more.";