JUDGMENT 1. - These petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are directed against the order of learned Special Judge for CBI cases Rajasthan, Jaipur dated June 1, 1987. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the CBI, Jaipur, filed a charge-sheet on June 1, 1987 against the petitioner Mohan Lal Pareek and one advocate Shri Maliram Bidsar. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that Shri Mohanlal Pareek while working as Income-tax Officer, Special Circle III Income-tax Officer J' Circle, Jaipur, during 1978-81 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Shri Mali Ram Bidsar to cheat the Income-tax Department. In pursuance of the conspiracy Shri Mali Ram Bidsar filed 30 forged tax deducted at source certificates' in the names of false and non-existing persons. The names of the parties have been given in Annexure 'A attached with the charge-sheet. It has been further alleged that Shri Maliram Bidsar prepared 30 forged and fake income-tax returns, the details of which have been given in Annexure `B attached with the charge-sheet. Shri Mali Ram Bidsar submitted those forged and fake certificates and income-tax returns in the Income-tax Department. It has been alleged that Shri Mohan Lal Pareek by abusing his official position, by corrupt and illegal means passed assessment orders for causing wrongful gain to Shri Maliram Bidsar and issued 20 refund orders, the details of which have been given in Annexure `C attached with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, Shri Mali Ram Bidsar in order to receive payments of the refund orders opened 11 fake accounts in different banks whose details have been given in Annexure `D attached with the charge-sheet. Shri Mali Ram Bidsar obtained unlawful gain of an amount of Rs 43,114/- and caused wrongful loss to the Income tax Department, in conspiracy with Mohan Lal Pareek. It has thus been alleged that Shri Mohan Lal Pareek and Shri Mali Ram Bidsar committed offences under Section 12C-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also Sections 420, 457 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 5(2) and 5(l)(d; of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The learned Special Judge by his order dated June 1987 took cognizance against the petitioner Mohan Lal Pareek as well as Shri Mali Ram Bidsar under the aforesaid offence. 3. The learned Special Judge by his order dated June 1987 took cognizance against the petitioner Mohan Lal Pareek as well as Shri Mali Ram Bidsar under the aforesaid offence. The petitioner Mohan Lal Pareek has hied this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance against him. 4. I have heard Mr. Soral for the petitioner and Mr. Tyagi for the CBI. 5. It was submitted by Mr. Soral that the petitioner was, working as Income-tax Officer and was discharging his duties in that capacity in an official manner. There is no case alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner violated any rules or circulars of the Department or any provisions of Income-tax Act in passing the impugned order. It was further argued that there is not an iota of evidence to prove any conspiracy of the petitioner with Maliram Bidsar Advocate. Even in the charge-sheet no circumstance or over tact has been mentioned to connect the petitioner with any of the offences or in conspiracy with Maliram Bidsar. The petitioner passed all the orders bona fidely and in good faith and discharged his duties as an Income tax Officer. 6. It was also argued by Mr Soral that all the cases, which have been cited in the charge-sheet were below Rs 25,000/- and were considered as petty cases. In such cases on the submission of income-tax returns the income-tax Officer is not supposed to verify the contents mentioned by the assesses and according to the directions of the department itself, the Income tax Officer is expected to pass assessment orders immediately. It is the duty of the assesses to file correct details of his income in the prescribed forms of returns and is to be duly verified by him by signing a declaration in the form of verification which also forms part of the return The Income-tax Officer exfacie accepts the declarations made by the assesses in the returns and in case the declarations are false the assesses is liable to penal action. It was also argued that Mali Ram Bidsar filed the returns along with certificates of tax deducted at source and there was no reason for the petitioner to have any suspicion in the genuineness of such certificates There are thousands of departments and no list of such departments is ever supplied to the Income-Tax Officers by the department. It was also argued that Mali Ram Bidsar filed the returns along with certificates of tax deducted at source and there was no reason for the petitioner to have any suspicion in the genuineness of such certificates There are thousands of departments and no list of such departments is ever supplied to the Income-Tax Officers by the department. It is humanly impossible for any Income-tax Officer to remember or even to learn the names of all these departments The Income-tax Officer is not provided with any specimen signatures of the Officers of any departments who issue such certificates of tax deducted at source The Income-tax Officer as such cannot verify the genuineness of such certificates and he has to satisfy exfacie after looking to the legibility of the signatures and seal over such certificate. In this case the tax deducted at source certificates were of petty amounts ranging from Rs. 1,260/- to 1681/- and it was neither feasible nor practicable for the petitioner to raise any sort of doubt on the genuineness of such certificates. It was also argued by Mr. Soral that these certificates of tax deducted at source had neither any erasure nor any additions or alterations and contain the seals and signatures of issuing officer in a clear manner and as such there was no mistake on the part of the petitioner to pass orders of refund. 7. Mali Ram Bidsar opened false and fake accounts in different banks and collected the payments of such refund for which the petitioner has no connection at all. It was also argued by Mr. Soral that Shri Mali Ram Bidsar was appearing in the department in many cases and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have any suspicion on the conduct of Mali Ram Bidsar It was thus submitted that there is no material available on record to take any action against the petitioner and the proceedings against him should be quashed. 8. In support of the above contention Mr. Soral placed reliance on Hiralal Jain v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1872 SC 2598 ; and R.K. Tongia v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 WLN (UC) 200 . 9. On the other hand, Mr. 8. In support of the above contention Mr. Soral placed reliance on Hiralal Jain v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1872 SC 2598 ; and R.K. Tongia v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 WLN (UC) 200 . 9. On the other hand, Mr. Tyagi learned counsel for CBI submitted that out of 30 cases there were two cases in which Maliram Bidsar had not filed even his vakalatnama or power of attorney The returns submitted were not verified properly and the refund orders were not sent by registered post to the assesses. It was also submitted that the refund orders passed by the petitioner have been set aside by the Commissioner. Income-tax under Section 2 3 of the Income-tax Act It was thus argued that from the above circumstances it is proved that the petitioner was in conspiracy with Mali Ram Bidsar and the learned Special Judge was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioner. 10. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 11. During the course of arguments Mr. Tyagi. learned counsel for CBI was unable to show and frankly conceded that there was no direct material on record to show any conspiracy of the petitioner with Mali Ram Bidsar. Mali Ram Bidsar was appearing in cases in the Income-tax Department and no material on record worth the name has been shown by the prosecution that the petitioner was showing any special favour to Maliram Bidsar or had any connection what soever with Mali Ram Bidsar outside the office. Admittedly, the assessments were below Rs. 25,000/ - and under Section 143(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Income-tax Officer is required to pass assessment orders without requiring the presence of the assesses or the production by him of any evidence in support of the return. Admittedly, the assessments were below Rs. 25,000/ - and under Section 143(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Income-tax Officer is required to pass assessment orders without requiring the presence of the assesses or the production by him of any evidence in support of the return. Mali Ram Bidsar had filed the returns as well as the certificates of tax deducted at source and there is no material worth the name on record to show that the petitioner could have any occasion or knowledge to suspect the genuineness of such certificates- The petitioner, in these circumstances, while discharging his duties as an Income-tax Officer passed the orders of assessment as well as the refund orders and it cannot be said that he had any conspiracy with Mali Ram Bidsar to commit any offence of cheating or to cause wrongful gain to Mali Ram Bidsar or wrongful loss to the department. Admittedly, the refund orders were also of petty amounts ranging from 1,260/-to 1,680/- and it is not expected in case of such petty amounts that any Income-tax Officer would verify the genuineness of the certificates of tax deducted at source. filed by any assessee. All the certificates of tax deducted at source contained the seal and signature and the return was verified by the assessee and in these circumstances no fault lies i n the petitioner in passing the impugned orders of assessment and refund. In my view from the entire allegations made in the charge-sheet as well as the documents filed in support of the charge-sheet no case under any offence as alleged is prima facie made out against the petitioner. 12. Now, I shall consider the circumstances which go against the petitioner as argued by Mr. Tyagi. One of the circumstance shown is that in two cases there was no vakalatnama of Mali Ram Bidsar. Admittedly, there were 30 cases and it is not denied that in 28 cases vakalatnama had been filed by Mali Ram Bidsar. It is' not the duty of the Income tax Officer to see in each and every case whether vakalatnama has been filed or not on behalf of the assessee. and normally when a counsel appears, the Income-tax Officer is right in assuming that power must have been filed by the counsel appearing for the assessee. It is' not the duty of the Income tax Officer to see in each and every case whether vakalatnama has been filed or not on behalf of the assessee. and normally when a counsel appears, the Income-tax Officer is right in assuming that power must have been filed by the counsel appearing for the assessee. In any case, even if in two cases vakalatnama had not been filed by Maliram Bidsar it had no connection whatsoever with the serious allegations of cheating, forgery and conspiracy alleged against the petitioner. 13. Another circumstance argued by Mr Tyagi is that the returns submitted were not verified properly. Mr. Tyagi was unable to show as to which returns were not verified and what was the nature of such defect in relation to the verification This circumstance also even if for arguments sake be taken to be correct, has no relation whatsoever with the alleged offences. So far as the refund orders being not sent by registered post, suffice it to say that this act is done by the other employees of the department and not by the Income-tax Officer. 14. The last circumstance shown by Mr. Tyagi is that the orders of assessment have been set aside by the Commissioner Income Tax under Section 26 of the Act. Commissioner Income Tax has a statutory power under Section 23 of the Act and if any order of the Income-tax Officer is set aside under the above provision, it can hardly be a justification for involving an Income-tax Officer for offences like cheating, forgery, conspiracy etc. That apart in the present case, the mischief came to notice later on and if on that ground the orders have been set aside by the Commissioner Income Tax, no fault lies with the petitioner. Thus I am of the view that there is not even remote circumstance to hold prima facie that the petitioner was having any conspiracy with Mali Ram Bidsar to commit the alleged offences. 15. Thus I am of the view that there is not even remote circumstance to hold prima facie that the petitioner was having any conspiracy with Mali Ram Bidsar to commit the alleged offences. 15. In Hiralal Jains case (supra) (1), it was held as under : "Where an advocate was engaged by some persons for identifying them as claimants in an application made on their behalf to claim certain Land acquisition compensation amount and the advocate believing the statements of the claimants as true filed his vakalatnama agreeing to act on their behalf, and there was no evidence to show prior knowledge on the part of advocate that the claimants were not the real persons entitled to claim the amount and no concert between the former and the latter was brought on record; Held, it could not be said that there was prima facie evidence entitling the Magistrate to commit the advocate for offences under Sections 120-B read with 419, 420, 511 and Sections 467 read with 471 Penal code." 16. In R.K. Tongias case (supra) (2), it was held an under:- "In the absence of any material from the prosecution side there is no circumstance to hold that the petitioner was in any manner involved in the conspiracy or in the commission of the other offences. There is not a single circumstance to prove any conduct or overeat on the part of the petitioner that he had any common intention to cheat or commit forgery. When there is no circumstance at all against the petitioner, he should not be put to the agony of the trial." 17. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the order of the Learned Special Judge for CBI cases dated June 1, 1987 taking cognizance against the petitioner, is quashed. *******