H.S.BEDI,J - (1.) A complaint under Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed against the petitioners on the ground that during the assessment year 1980-81 they had concealed income of Rs. 18,677/- with an intention to evade the tax payable. On being summoned by the Magistrate, the petitioners moved an application under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking their discharge on the ground that as per the instructions issued by the Board of Direct Taxes, the prosecution could be launched only if the concealment was found to be above Rs. 25,000/-. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took up the application, dismissed the same vide order dated September 5, 1992, copy Annexure P-3 to the petition, holding inter-alia, that as the Court had already taken cognizance of the complaint, an order of discharge could not be made and the matter had to be proceeded with on the basis of the evidence. It was also held that the instructions referred to above, which had been issued on February 7, 1991, could not be applied retrospectively to a concealment made in assessment year 1980-81. It is against the order, Annexure P-3, that the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint as also the consequential proceedings initiated thereon.
(2.) VARIOUS legal issues have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am, however, of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of on the short ground that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Chandigarh Bench) in its order dated December 16, 1993 has held that the sum of Rs. 18,677/- was in fact not concealed income but was an adjustment in the account books. It is, therefore, apparent that the very basis of the present proceedings has ceased to exist. Mr. Sawhney, the learned counsel for the respondents, has, however, further argued that as a matter of fact, it would be improper to quash the proceedings at this stage. He has also cited certain judgments in support of his submission. I am, however, of the opinion that in view of the facts that have come on record and more particularly the order of the Income Tax Tribunal dated December 16, 1993, it would be a misuse of process of the Court to continue with the crime proceedings any further.
(3.) IN view of the above, Crl. Misc. is allowed and the complaint, Annexure P-1, and all the consequential proceedings are quashed. Petition allowed.;