( 1 ) ). HEARD learned counsel Mr. Puj for the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. Naik for respondent No. 2 - Income Tax authority, and learned A. P. P. Mr. Desai for the State in all these matters. As was agreed and stated at the Bar, all these matters involve common legal issues and therefore they are, by consent, disposed by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 959 to 961 of 1992 is a partner in the firm which is the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 965 to 967 of 1992. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 962 to 964 of 1992 is also a partner in the same firm as the first mentioned petitioner. Thus, the two partners and the partnership firm have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the complaints and the criminal proceedings in the various pending criminal cases initiated by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad.

( 3 ) THE offences alleged against the petitioners are one or more or all of the offences defined or made punishable under Sections 276-C (1), 276-C (2), 276-CC and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "act" ). The offences alleged against the petitioners are in respect of the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85. Primarily the complaint against the petitioners are arising from late filing of income tax returns, non-payment of advance tax, wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest, false statement in verification etc.

( 4 ) THERE is no controversy about the fact that the partners and the partnership firm were required to file their returns of income by the prescribed date and that they had failed in doing so. The petitioners had also failed to pay any advance tax at the time when it was payable. In most of the cases, the petitioners were required by notice under Section 139 (2) of the Act to furnish their returns of income. Thereafter, when the returns were filed and the assessment was finalised under Section 143 (3) of the Act and the tax payable, interest and penalty were also determined, they were paid. Broadly on these facts, it is alleged in the original complaints that by filing the returns late and only after the notice under Section 139 (2), the petitioners had wilfully evaded payment of self-assessment tax payable under Section 140-A of the Act. Thus, the offences punishable under Sections 276-C (2) and 276-CC are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. In Criminal Misc. Applications Nos. 963 of 1992 and 964 of 1992, the offences punishable under Sections 276-C (1) and 277 are also alleged to have been committed by wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest and on account of false statement made in the verification etc.

( 5 ) ADDRESSING the arguments common to all these cases, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lapses on the part of the petitioners are of technical nature and the complainant has singled out the petitioners for prosecution. It is also submitted that, even assuming the allegations against the petitioners to be true, there is no element of mens rea which can be attributed to the petitioners particularly in view of the facts that the petitioners have paid up all the amounts, interest charged and the penalty imposed. As against these submissions, Mr. Naik appearing for the Department has submitted that the allegation that the petitioners are singled out for criminal prosecution are baseless and, in any case, the criminal cases cannot be quashed only on the ground that other assessees committing similar defaults are not prosecuted. As regards the plea of absence of mens rea, the provisions of Section 278-E are relied upon to submit that a culpable mental state on the part of the accused has to be presumed in the prosecution for any offence under the Act. It is further submitted that although Section 278-E is introduced in 1986, it has retrospective effect and it applies to the pending proceedings.

( 6 ) THE main controversy in the