Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of seven more petitions Cr. M (M) No. 711/85, Cr. M (M) 1041/85 Cr. M (M)1043/85 all titled as Parmeet Singh Sawney v. Dinesh Verma, I. T. O. and others as also Cr. M (M) 1363/85, Cr. M (M) 1364/85, Cr. M (M)1365/85and-Cr. M (M) 1366/85 all titled as Paramjeet Kaur and others v. Dinesh Verma, ITO and others.

( 2 ) THE petitions are in two sets : one set pertaining to the prosecution of the petitioners under section 276-B of 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 276 (B) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1974-76 (Accounting year 1973-74 ). The persons who are being prosecuted in the aforesaid prosecution are petitioners Harjeet Kaur, Smt. Veera Wali, Jaspal Singh, Inderjit Singh. Amrik Singh and Parmeet Singh.

( 3 ) THE brief allegations on the basis of which prosecutions have been initiated are that the petitioners are partners of firm M/s. Eagle Instalments and at the time of commission of the offence they were Incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business. Apparently, the petitioners are made vicariously liable for the act of commission of the firm. The case against the petitioners is that they failed to deduct income-tax on the interest paid to certain parties and deposit the same in the Income-tax Department within time. It may be noticed that the common case of the parties is that the State has not suffered any loss as the tax due has been paid on assessment.

( 4 ) I may farther notice that even though the prosecuti on relates to the commission of offence for the accounting years 1970-71 and 1973-74, the prosecutions were actually initiated on 29th March 1984, i. e. in the first case about a decade after the alleged commisssion of offence and in the second case almost 14 years from the date of alleged offence. The petitioners have challenged the prosecution and have prayed that the prosecution may be quashed in exercise of the powers of this court under section 482 Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) MR. D. R. Sethi has urged a number of contentions but before I deal with those contentions I must take up for consideration the objection of Mr. Jolly that these petitions are not maintainable in view of the fact that contents of the complaint makes out a case against the petitioners. The contention of Mr. Jolly is that if on the facts mentioned in the complaint the court has taken cognizance, then this court should not interfere in exercise of its powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. Mr. Jolly 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 the prosecution degenerates into prosecution, this court cannot sit as 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.

( 6 ) ADVERTING to the first contention of Mr. D. R. Sethi, it may be stated that section 278-B of Income-tax Act came into existence for the first time on 1st October 1975. This section stipulates that every person who at the time of commission of offence was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, shall be liable to be proceeded against. Before the introduction of this section (Sec. 278-B) a firm alone could have been proceeded against. Mr. Jolly states that firm includes its partners and they as well could be prosecuted. I must at once point out that Mr. Jolly is labouring under misconception. Under Partnership Act, partners of course will be liable for all the liabilities but we are in a different

Click Here to Read the rest of this document