(M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal No. 2040 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10027/2022], decided on November 23, 2022
Income Tax Department _____________________________ Appellant;
v.
Jenious Clothing Private Ltd. and Another ____________ Respondent(s).
With
Criminal Appeal No. 2041 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11160/2022)
Criminal Appeal No. 2040 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10027/2022) and Criminal Appeal No. 2041 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11160/2022)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order(s) dated 11.03.2022 and 07.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 388 of 2021 and 397 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said Revision Petitions preferred by the Department and has confirmed the respective orders passed by the learned trial Court discharging the accused for the offences under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the Revenue/Department has preferred the present Appeals.
3. We have heard Ms. Monica Benjamin, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Preetesh Kapur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 10027 of 2022 arising out of judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 388 of 2021. However, as the common question of law and facts arise in the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11160/2022 arising out of judgment and order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 397 of 2021 and between the same parties and with the same subject-matter, we propose to dispose of both the Special Leave Petitions by this common judgment and order.
4. Criminal complaints were filed against the Respondent-Company and one another, namely, S. Sunil V. Raheja, for the offences punishable under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Act. In the complaints, accused No. 2/S. Sunil V. Raheja is shown as Managing Director and is treated as the Principal Officer of the accused-Company.
5. The learned trial Court discharged both the accused on the ground that Respondent No. 2 was wrongly treated as the Principal Officer by the Department. Reliance was placed on Section 2(35) of the Act. The order of discharge has been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and orders passed in revision petitions. Number of submissions have been made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in support of their rival submissions on the respondent No. 2-accused No. 2/S. Sunil V. Raheja treated as a Principal Officer.
6. However, after making some submissions, Mr. Preetesh Kapur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Respondent No. 2, under the instructions, has stated at the Bar that if the orders passed by the learned trial Court discharging the accused confirmed by the High Court are set aside and the trial is ordered to be proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits and keeping all the defences which may be available to the accused open, respondents have no objection.
7. In view of the above stand taken, we do not further enter into the rival submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The order(s) passed by the learned trial Court discharging the accused for the offences punishable under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Act confirmed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. Now the trial with respect to CC No. 90 of 2019 and 89 of 2019 are ordered to be proceeded further which shall be decided and disposed of by the learned trial Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.
8. It goes without saying that all the defences which will be available to the accused shall be considered by the learned trial Court in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence led.
9. We direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of the present order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present Appeals are allowed.
SLP (Criminal) No(s). 10027/2022
The Income Tax Department ________________________ Petitioner
v.
M/s. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd. & Anr ____________ Respondent(s)
([PART HEARD BY: HON. M.R. SHAH AND HON. M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.])
WITH
SLP (CRL.) No. 11160/2022
Date: 23-11-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. The present Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
