Ram Krit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 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 section 276b of the income-tax act. his failure to submit the return is, thus, directly related to the official duties to be performed by him......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 section 276b of the income-tax 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 section 197 of the code of criminal procedure (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.....

Judgment:

D.S. Dhaliwal, J.

1. Under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is order dated February 30, 1992, passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner of an offence under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act and also order dated March 27, 1992, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna--opposite party No. 1, under Section 279(1) of the Income-tax 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 Section 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 Section 276B of the Income-tax 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 Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (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 Section 197 of the Code has been obtained in this case. In the absence of the aforesaid sanction under Section 197 of the Code, neither could the Commissioner of Income-tax have sanctioned the launching of the prosecution nor the special court could have taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

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