Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Union of India through the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Mumbai, filed criminal revision applications challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, whereby accused Nos.1 to 4 were discharged from the prosecution launched by the Income Tax Department under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were M/s Gupta Builders Private Limited (accused No.1), Inderjit Sharma (accused No.2), Mrs. Prabha Inderjit Sharma (accused No.3), and Smt. S. Sharma (accused No.4, later deleted). The prosecution alleged that the accused failed to deduct tax at source as required under the Income Tax Act. The Magistrate discharged the accused without considering the complaint and the documents annexed thereto. The High Court held that the Magistrate erred in discharging the accused without proper application of mind and without considering the evidence on record. The court set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The revision applications were allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 245 - Discharge - Standard of Proof - The Magistrate must consider the entire material on record and cannot discharge accused if there is a prima facie case - Held that the order of discharge was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the evidence collected by the prosecution (Paras 1-3). B) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 276-B read with Section 278-B - Failure to Deduct Tax at Source - Prosecution - The Income Tax Department launched prosecution for failure to deduct tax at source - The Magistrate discharged the accused without considering the complaint and documents - Held that the order of discharge was erroneous and set aside (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in discharging the accused under Section 245 CrPC in a prosecution under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The revision applications are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 245 CrPC is not a substitute for trial
- Prima facie case sufficient for framing of charges
- Section 276-B Income Tax Act
- 1961
- Section 278-B Income Tax Act
