CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1997) 05 PAT CK 0009

RAM KRIT SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 16 May 1997 · Citation: (1998) 147 CTR 498 : (1997) 2 PLJR 243

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. S. Dhaliwal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9056 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 364 words

D. S. DHALIWAL, J. :

Under challenge in this petition under s. 482 of the CrPC, 1973, is order dt. 30th February, 1992, passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner of an offence under s. 276B of the IT Act and also order dt. 27th March, 1992, passed by the CIT, Patna - opposite party No. 1, under s. 279(1) of the IT Act, whereby he sanctioned the filing of the complaint against the petitioner.

2.

The allegations against the petitioner are that while posted as Treasury Officer, Munger, he was required under s. 192 to make deductions of Income Tax while paying salaries to the Government servants and to file a return intimating such deductions. It is alleged that although the petitioner made the required deductions but failed to submit the requisite return within time, and as such committed an offence punishable under s. 276B of the IT Act.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

4.

The orders under challenge cannot be sustained for the reason that no sanction for prosecution of the petitioner as required by s. 197 of the CrPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") was ever obtained. The petitioner, being a Treasury Officer, was a public servant and was not removable from his office save with the sanction of the State Government. It was part of his official duty to deduct the Income Tax from the salary of various Government servants and thereafter submit a return in that regard. His failure to submit the return is, thus, directly related to the official duties to be performed by him.

5.

Counsel for the Department after going through the records of the case admits that no sanction under s. 197 of the Code has been obtained in this case. In the absence of the aforesaid sanction under s. 197 of the Code, neither could the CIT have sanctioned the launching of the prosecution nor the special Court could have taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

In the result, the petition is allowed. Both the orders under challenge are hereby quashed.