- (1.) THIS order will dispose of this petition as well as connected Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 16 of 1987, 182 of 1987, 1258 of 1986, 1259 of 1986, 1260 of 1986, 1261 of 1986, 1262 of 1986 and 1257 of 1986 as the same legal controversy is involved in all these petitions. In all these petitions, the accused-petitioners seek quashment of the proceedings on a complaint instituted by the Income-tax Department against them for offences under Sections 276, 277, etc. , of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as the orders of the trial court of different dates summoning these petitioners to face trial for the above-referred offences, inter alia, on the ground that the trial court had failed to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case while summoning the accused-petitioners in all these cases. The complaint and the resultant proceedings are also sought to be quashed on different grounds taken in the respective petitions.
(2.) IT is too early to go into the merits of the quashment of the complaint because the order summoning the accused-petitioners does not reveal that the trial court had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. This court cannot substitute itself for the trial court in order to appraise those circumstances, especially when the trial court is bound to go into all the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the appropriate order. The trial court in all these cases had passed similar orders, which read as under : "complaint has been presented today. It be registered. Accused be summoned by bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 3,000 for February 5, 1986. So far as the application for exemption from personal appearance is concerned, as the complaint has been filed in an official capacity and the complainant, has to attend to her duties as Income-tax Officer, the personal appearance of the complainant is dispensed with till further orders. In her absence, counsel for the complainant, Shri S. N. Gupta, shall put in appearance. "
(3.) MR. Ajay Kumar Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the trial court has indirectly applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case while exempting the personal appearance of the complainant, as the very factum of exempting the personal appearance of the complainant, does reveal so. I fail to subscribe to this view as the trial court, in the impugned order, has not even stated having gone through the averments in the complaint, what to say of applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that the trial court had simply gone through the application praying for exemption of personal appearance of the complainant and came to the conclusion that "since the complaint has been filed by the Income-tax Officer in his official capacity and the complainant has to attend to duties as Income-tax Officer, the personal appearance of the complainant is dispensed with till further orders", rather applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case embodied in the complaint. Thus, there is no option but to quash the above-referred order summoning the accused to face trial for the above referred offence in all these petitions. The trial court shall, however, pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due application of mind. The accused-petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all these pleas which they have taken in these petitions before the trial court, in support of their defence, if need be. These petitions stand disposed of accordingly. This view is also supported by a decision of a single Bench of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No, 1104 of 1986, delivered on November 2, 1987, Pran Nath v. Chief Judicial Magistrate { 1991 ] 192 ITR 70 (P and H ).;