AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—The petitioners seek for a direction of this court to the second respondent herein to dispose of the representation dated October 4, 2002, to compound the offences against the petitioners pertaining to C. A. No. 15 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, as envisaged in Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard learned counsel for both sides.
It is represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the matter is purely administrative in character and it is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that this petition has got to be dismissed on two grounds. At the outset it would be more appropriate to extract Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
"Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or a Director-General".
From a very reading of the same, it would be clear that the discretionary power was vested upon the Chief Commissioner to compound the same and it would clearly mean that the Chief Commissioner has to necessarily appraise the circumstances of the matter and compound the same, if warrants so. Secondly, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where this court could invoke its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue a direction as one asked for by the petitioners in the original petition. Hence, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the second respondent may consider the representation made by the petitioner dated October 4, 2002, and pass suitable orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected Crl. M. P. is also dismissed.