P.N. Subramanian and others vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Arunachalam, J.—All these petitions are disposed of together by a common order since the points raised are identical and the petitioners are

brothers.

All these petitions have been preferred u/s 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, to stay all further proceedings in E.O.C.C. Nos. 159 of

1989, 160 of 1989, 161 of 1989, 167 of 1989 and 168 of 1989 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic

Offences, Egmore, Madras. Interim stay was ordered in all these petitions on October 25, 1989.

The only ground on which stay was asked for and obtained in all the pending prosecutions was that the respective petitioners had filed

applications before the Settlement Commission and, in spite of objections by the Income Tax Commissioner, the Settlement Commission had

admitted all the applications preferred by the petitioners. The Settlement Commission has ultimately passed order in favour of the petitioners and

hence continuation of these prosecutions would be redundant.

Now, learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in unison submit that the

Settlement Commission of course has passed order on the applications preferred by all the petitioners though the details are not fully available.

Learned counsel representing the Department fairly stated that the orders of the Settlement Commission are being given effect to.

If that be so, the trial Magistrate will dispose of the pending prosecutions in E.O.C.C. Nos. 159 of 1989, 160, 161, 167 and 168 of 1989, in

the light of the order passed by the Settlement Commission which will be placed before him by the prosecuting as well as defence counsel along

with their respective submissions. In that view, continuance of the stay any longer in these E.O.C.Cs. will not be necessary. These petitions are

dismissed subject to the observations made earlier.