High Court refuses to quash prosecution proceedings u/s 276C, directs prayer for bail be considered and decided if applicant surrenders before Trial court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3170 (2019) (10) HC
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283
In the instant case, the assessee had filed an application under section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the impugned summoning order and Non bailable warrant (N..B.W.) order as well as the entire proceedings under Sections- 276C(1) and 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences).
The contention of applicant was that no offence against him was disclosed and the prosecution had been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He also produced certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that at this stage, the argument raised by the applicant involved factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at the stage it could not be said that no offence was made out against the applicant at this stage.
It was further observed that all the submissions made were related to the disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble High Court stated that at this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court
Accordingly the Hon’ble High Court refused the prayer for quashing the entire proceeding. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by the High Court.
It was also directed that for such period, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.
ITAT allowed increased exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees in view of CBDT retrospective notification. In…
PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases irrespective of the fact that the relevant assessment was completed physical…
Appellate court interfering with Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal findings on assessment of disability and loss of earning capacity must undertake…
When period of delay is not very huge and involve huge monetary liability on the assessee, a lenient approach should…
Ratification by EoGM of the company can not give legality of the diversion of the fund raised by preferential issue.…
CBIC prescribes procedures for return of export cargo from international waters due to closure of the Strait of Hormuz where…