If there is no case for sustenance of penalty, it equally is not a case for criminal prosecution.

M.M.Punchhi, J.

1. This is a petition Under Section 482, Cr. PC, for quashing the criminal complaint filed by the ITO, Kurukshetra, against the petitioner.

2. Skeletal facts arising thereto are these:

Occasion had arisen during assessment proceedings to initiate imposition of penalty on the petitioner. The officer of the first instance imposed penalty on the petitioner. Later, that order was quashed by the appellate authority. On the strength of the order of the officer of the first instance, criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioner under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioner, taking aid of the order of the appellate authority, apprised the learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was pending, that when the case of the Department for the imposition of penalty had faltered, there was no case to proceed against the petitioner criminally. Reliance was placed on two judgments, Uttam Chard v. ITO [1982] 133 ITR 909 (SC) and Parkash Chand v. ITO [1982] 134 ITR 8 (P&H).

3. The learned trial Magistrate dismissed the prayer of the petitioner being of the view that unless some evidence comes on the record, it would be premature to pronounce on the matter.

4. It has to be borne in mind that the courts time is precious and is not meant to be employed for proceedings which are directionless. Here, concededly, the Supreme Court has pronounced in Uttam Chands case, that if there is no case for sustenance of penalty, it equally is not a case for criminal prosecution. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is well grounded. Rather, learned counsel for the income-tax department appearing for the respondent had nothing to say against it and did not even venture to distinguish that case. Thus, the petitioner has a clean sail. The complaint, and the proceedings taken thereon, must necessarily be quashed, which is hereby done. Disposed of accordingly while allowing the petition.