Judgment:
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) These four matters arise from the same proceedings so I am disposing them of by this Judgment.
(2) Facts, in brief, are that Shri NKumar, Incometax Officer. Central Circle Xix, New Delhi had filed a criminal complaint against 10 accused for offences committed by them under Section 276(0(1) and 278 of Income-tax Act 1961. Accused No. I is M/s. Electric Construction and Equipment Company Limited, accused No. 2 is President of that company while accused No. 3 to 9 are the Directors of the said company and accused No. 10 is an employee of that company. The accused No. I is engaged in the manufacture of various electric items. For the Assessment Year 1981-82, the accused company filed its return of income-tax on June 29, 1981 which was in prescribed form and was verified under the signatures of Accused No. 7. The return was accompanied by printed audited Balance-sheet, Profit & Loss Account and other details which was singed by accused No. 3,4,5,6 and 9 in their capacities as Directors. The matter regarding the assessment of the income was pending and notice was issued on 8th July 1983 to the accused for the calling further information in detail but in the meanwhile the Central Excise authorities searched the premises of accused No. I in between the period October 27 to October 28. 1983 at various places and the said search and the inquiries revealed that during the relevant year 15 consignments, each containing 7,000 pieces of tube lights were taken out from the factory premises at Sonipat while 13 consignments were transported vide invoices and challans, details of which are given in the complaint. This information was passed on to Income-tax authorities and it was revealed that the said consignments were dispatched from the factory at Sonipat to Ram Nagar Depot but inspire of requiring the accused to show that these goods have been accounted for the accused failed to show that these goods have been accounted for in their account books. It was pleaded that the conduct of the accused and their failure to furnish any proof with regard to the consignment of the goods referred to above shows that all the accused have caused circumstances to exist which will have the effect of enabling them to evade tax penalty or interest chargeable or imposable . under the Act and thus they were stated to have committed the offences punishable under section 276(0(1) of the Income-tax Act, while accused No. 10 has committed offence under Section 278 of the Act. The accused have been summoned and are facing trial for the said offences. The accused No. I and its President accused No. 2 filed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1985 praying that the said criminal case be quashed and the accused be discharged.
(3) V Six accused who are the Directors of the said company, have filed Criminal Minscellaneous (M) 764 of 1985 paying for the same relief. Shri P.D. Pasari, accused No. 8, one of the Directors also filed separate Crl. Misc(M) 594 of 1985 seeking the same relief.
(4) The accused have filed Cri. Rev No. 162 of 1986 praying that the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to stay/adjourn/postpone the proceedings till the re-assessment proceedings are completed by the Income-tax authorities be set aside and proceedings be also quashed and the accused be discharged and in the alternative it be directed that trial shall stand stayed till the re-assessment proceedings are 340 completed by the Income-tax authorities in respect of assessment year in question. Shri Kapil Sibbal, senior counsel and Shri Atui Chitale who appeared in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 1985 and Shri P.O. Gokhale who appeared for the petitioners in other petitions withdrew the petitions seeking the quashment of the proceedings and they have confined their prayer only to the effect that trial in the case should be stayed till the reassessment proceedings are finalised in respect of the relevant year by the income-tax authorities. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Shri D.K. Jain.
(5) Section 276(0(1) lay down that if a person willfully attempts in' any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act, he shall without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any provision of this Act, shall be punished and then the punishments have been enumerated in the Section. This Section has nothing to do with the assessment proceedings pending before the income-tax authorities. The counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the assessment-proceedings for the relevant year, if completed and no concealment of income-tax is found out then the present complaint would become infructuous and thus it is highly in the interest of justice that proceedings in the criminal case should be stayed 'till the re-assessment proceedings are completed by the income-tax authorities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the averments made in the complaint show that the accused have trial to evade the duty by not accounting the goods taken out from their factory in their account books and thus the ingredients of the offence covered by Section 276(0(1) of the Act are prima facie made out and the result of the re-assessment proceedings may or may not have any effect on the criminal trial and it would not he in the interest of justice to stay the criminal trial till there-assessment proceedings are completed. He has placed reliance on P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, : [1984]149ITR696(SC) . It has been held in this judgment by the Supreme Court that the pendency of the re-assessment proceedings could not act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 276(0) or Section 277 of the Income-tax Act. Nor could the institution of the criminal proceedings, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court. It was further observed that there is no provision in law which provides that a prosecution for the offences under Section 276C or Section 277 of the Act cannot be launched until re-assessment proceedings against the assessed are completed and mere expectation of a success in some proceedings under the Income-tax Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings It has also been laid down in this very judgment that the criminal court, no doubt, has to give due regard to the result of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, having a bearing on the question in issue and in a proper case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the passed under the Act. However, it does not mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court as the criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. It was also held in this very judgment that in appropriate cases the criminal court may adjourn or postpone the hearing of the criminal case in exercise of its discretionary power under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. if the disposal of any proceedings under the Income- tax Act which has bearing on the proceedings before it is imminent so 341 that it may take into consideration also the orders to be passed therein. It was further observed that there is no rigid rule which makes it necessary for a criminal court to adjourn or postpone the hearing of a case before it indefinitely or for an unduly long period only because some proceedings which may have some bearing on it is pending elsewhere. The above observation of the Supreme Court clearly apply to the facts of the present case. The trial in the criminal cases should take priority and it is always desirable that evidence which the prosecution has to lead in support of complaint, should be led as early as possible so that the evidence is not lost with the passage of time The interest of justice required that the criminal trial , - should proceed expeditiously and be completed at the earliest. So there is no question of staying the trial of the criminal complaint completely as is desired by the petitioners. However, if the criminal trial is reached at the final stage after parties have led evidence and the possibility of re-assessment proceedings being completed is imminent than a prayer be made to the Court concerned and the Court may exercise its discretion in postponing the final decision till the order iu the re-assessment proceedings by the Income-tax authorities is made. The Trial Court obviously shall exercise its discretion keeping in view the facts and circumstances appearing in the case at that time. With this observation, I dismiss all these petitions.