Rakoor Industries P. Ltd. vs R.L. Bali Income Tax Officer and Others

Vipin Sanghi, J.—The present petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek the setting aside of the ACMMs order dated June 9, 2005 and the learned ASJs order dated January 18, 2006 and for quashing the complaint dated March 31, 1987, filed by Sh. R.L. Bali, income tax Officer, Company Circle XII, New Delhi against the Petitioners and late Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, director of Petitioner No. 1

The primary submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the income tax return in question, out of which the aforesaid Rs. 3,04,000, the tax effect would be about Rs. 1.2 lakhs, assuming that the rate of taxation at the relevant time was 40 per cent. The tax on the said income also stands paid.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his submission that the immense delay caused in the prosecution of the case has vitiated the trial, relies on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, . The Supreme Court in this decision has held as follows:

It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an inalienable right under article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time frame for conclusion of trial.

In the facts of the case dealt with by the Supreme Court, the delay in trial was about 28 years. In the present case, the trial was initiated on March 31, 1987 in respect of the assessment year 1976-77. Even from the year 1987, till this petition was filed in the year 2006, over 19 years had passed. There is no explanation given by the Respondents as to why other prosecution witnesses have not been examined despite the passage of time and it is also evident from the record that there is no explanation given by the income tax Department for the delay in examining the other prosecution witnesses.

Mr. Pandey, on instructions from Petitioner No. 2 who is present in court, submits that the Petitioner leaves it to the court to impose appropriate costs upon the Petitioners ,in view of the fact that the Petitioner is being relieved of the prosecution, which if continued may have eventually lead to imposition of sentence of imprisonment and/or fine upon the Petitioner .

In view of the aforesaid position, in my opinion, the present is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint case filed by the income tax Department.

Accordingly, the present complaint is quashed subject to a deposit of Rs. 25,000 in the Prime Ministers Relief Fund by Petitioner No. 2. The amount be deposited within four weeks and an affidavit of compliance along with the receipt of payment be filed on record with a copy to Mr. Sabharwal.