Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Babloo Sharma alias Pramod Sharma, a director of M/s Gold Sukh Trade India Limited, filed six connected criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, seeking to quash prosecution proceedings pending against him under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan-II. A search was conducted on 18.11.2010 at the business and residential premises of the company and its directors. Subsequently, on 09.08.2011, a notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner, received on 11.08.2011, requiring him to file income tax returns within 35 days from the date of receipt, i.e., by 15.09.2011. The petitioner sent letters dated 06.12.2010 and 19.01.2011 requesting copies of seized material, panchnama, and statements recorded by the search party. On 19.10.2011, he again sent a letter requesting the documents. The petitioner contended that these documents were never supplied to him or his authorised representative; a letter from VKJ and Company dated 21.11.2011 did not reference the petitioner or his case. Consequently, he argued that he was not in a position to file income tax returns and thus committed no offence under Section 276CC. The respondent department opposed the petitions, raising an objection of inordinate delay of 8 years in filing the petitions from the 2013 complaint to 2021. The respondent argued that no request was made by the petitioner prior to the expiry of the 35-day period; the desired documents were supplied to authorised representatives on the same day as the first letter, 19.10.2011, and the signatures appeared to match. The respondent further submitted that the question whether the documents were actually received by the authorised representative is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the defence of the accused should be appreciated by the trial court at the appropriate stage, and the case is now posted for recording evidence. The respondent also asserted that the mandate under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 was complied with at the time of search. Both sides relied on several precedents: the petitioner cited Lal Saraf v. State of Bihar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. V.K. Gupta, and Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 v. Rajendra Prasad Vaish; the respondent relied on Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor. The High Court heard the arguments and reserved the order on 22.07.2026, pronouncing the full order on 28.07.2026. In the extracted portion, the court recorded the submissions but no final decision or reasoning on the merits was included. The court considered common questions of law and facts in all six petitions and decided them by a common order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Disputed questions of fact regarding receipt of documents by authorized representative cannot be adjudicated in quashing petition; matter for trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Petitioner sought quashing of prosecution under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961; respondent contended that the question whether desired documents were received by petitioner's authorized representative is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the defence of accused cannot be looked into by conducting a mini trial or making fishing and roving enquiry. (Paras 4-9) B) Income Tax - Offences and Prosecution - Section 276CC Income Tax Act, 1961 - Prosecution for failure to furnish return in response to notice under Section 153A; defence of non-supply of search documents raised - Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 276CC, 153A - Petitioner was issued notice dated 09.08.2011 under Section 153A to file income tax returns within 35 days of receipt, but he claimed inability due to non-supply of search documents; respondent asserted that the time period expired on 15.09.2011 and no request was made prior to expiry. (Paras 2-7) C) Income Tax - Search and Seizure - Section 132 Income Tax Act, 1961 - Obligation to supply panchnama and statements; alleged non-compliance may affect ability to file return - Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 132 - Petitioner argued that respondent was mandated to supply copy of panchnama, statements recorded by search party, and annexures prepared during search proceedings; respondent claimed compliance with Section 132 at the time of search. (Paras 5-9) D) Criminal Procedure - Delay and Laches - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Respondent objected to inordinate delay of 8 years in filing petition from 2013 complaint to 2021 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - Complaint was filed in 2013 and these criminal misc. petitions were filed in 2021 after a delay of 8 years without justified reason; respondent argued such belated approach should be dismissed. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961 pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence) are liable to be quashed due to alleged non-supply of search documents and panchnama by Income Tax Department.
Law Points
- Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers are to be exercised sparingly and not for adjudicating disputed facts
- offence under Section 276CC requires wilful failure to furnish returns in response to notice under Section 153A
- compliance with Section 132 of Income Tax Act includes supply of seized material
- inordinate delay may bar relief in quashing jurisdiction
- defence of accused is matter for trial
