S.P. Rajkhowa, J. - (1.) By a apply judgement I am going to dispose of this batch of criminal revisions as (sic) as the same question of law is involved therein. The petitioners have prayed for' quashing the proceedings under Sec. 276B read with Sec. 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sri M.R. Mullick, learned Chief Metropolitan' magistrate, Calcutta, by his impugned order dated 29th March, 1984 passed in Case No. C/777 of 1984 took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 276B/178B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued Processes upon the accused persons for their appearance. By this impugned order dated 30th March, 1984 in case no. C/780 of 1984 took cogniance of the offences under Ss. 276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued processes upon the accused persons for their appearance. By his impugned order dated 31st March, 1984 in case no. C/790 of 1984 took cognizance of the offences under Section. 276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued processes upon the accused persons for their appearance. Similarly, by his impugned order dated 28th march, 1984 in case no. C/764 of 1984 took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued processes upon the accused persons for their appearance.
(2.) Criminal Revision No. 1569 of 1984 arises out of the impugned order passed in case no. C/777 of 19S4. Criminal Revision No. 1570 of 1984 arises out of the impugned order passed in case no. C/780 of 1984. Criminal Revision No. 1571 of 1984 arises out of the impugned order passed in case no. C/790 of 1984. Criminal revision No. 1572 of 1984 arises out of the impugned order passed in case no. C/764 of 1984.
(3.) The only point canvassed before by Sri Amit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are not maintainable in view of the penal provision contained in Sec. 276B of the Income Tax Act whereby infringement of certain provisions of the Income Tax Act will be visited with rigorous imprisonment for a term or and a Company being a juristic person cannot be sent to jail even if it is found that the Company has infringed the law. Sri Bhattacharjee has, in support of his contention, relied upon the following decisions : - (1) : (1980) 126 ITR 804 (Kusum Products Ltd. v/s. S.K. Sinha, Income Tax Officer, Central Circle -X, Calcutta), (2), (1983) 54 Com Cas 835 (Allahabad) (Modi Industries Ltd. v/s. B.C. Goel) & (3), (1989) O. Cr. LR (Cal) 171 (The East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd - v/s. Amulya Krishna Mondal, I.T.C.E., Ward. Jute Circle, Calcutta & Ant.).;