AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pratap Singh, J.—Second accused in C. C. Nos. 319 to 329 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II,
Egmore, Madras, has filed these petitions to quash all further proceedings in the said cases.
The respondent has filed complaints against Messrs. Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Finance and Industrial Investments, Madras, the petitioner
herein, and one K. V. Sasidhar, arraying them as accused Nos. 1 to 3, respectively, for the offence u/s 269SS of the Income Tax Act. To quash
the same, the second accused in all those cases has come forward with these petitions u/s 482, Criminal Procedure, Code.
Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that according to the complaint, the petitioner is a partner of Messrs.
Dhanalakshmi Consolidates Finance and Industrial Investments and that necessary allegations as required u/s 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
have not been made in the complaint to make him liable for the offence u/s 269SS of the Income Tax Act.
I have heard Mr. Ramasamy learned counsel for the Income Tax Department, on the above aspect.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side. The relevant allegations are made in paragraph 4 of the
complaint which are similar in all the cases and which read as follows :
On September 25, 1984, the accused have without reasonable cause for excuse, accepted from Sri D. Govardhana Reddy, Melempudi Post
Office, viz., Nutakki, Tenali RMS, Guntur Dist., the deposit of Rs. 27,000 in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
during the accounting year 1984-85.
As per section 278B of the Income Tax Act, where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company every person who, at the time
the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the
company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In these cases,
necessary allegations so as to bring the petitioner u/s 278B have not been made in paragraph 4 of the complaint which I have extracted above. In
view of the same, all further proceedings in C. C. Nos. 319 to 329 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II,
Egmore, Madras, shall stand quashed in so far as they relate to the second accused-petitioner herein.