MILAP CHANDRA, J.—The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment)-II, Jaipur filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, under sections 276-C(l) and 277 read with section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the accused-petitioners and their Pvt. Ltd, Company, M/s Registan (P) Ltd., Jaipur, with the allegations, in short, that in the return of income of the company in respect of the assessment year 1981-82, deductions to the tune of Rs. 1,63,153/- and Rs. 4.69,259/- were shown as bad debts and commission paid respectively and on examination of the return and account-books, both these amounts were found to have been falsely claimed so with a view to evade tax. Accordingly, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Jaipur added these amounts in the taxable income and assessed the assessee. On appeal by the assessee, the C1T (Appeals), Jaipur allowed these deductions. Thereafter, Department filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, it was allowed and the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) was set aside. The accused-petitioners were inchrage of and were responsible to the said company for the conduct of its business. The said offences were committed by them with an intention to evade tax 2. On December 5, 1987, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences\ Rajasthan Jaipur took cognizance of the. said offences against all the accused-persons and ordered for the issue of non-bailable warrants against the accused-petitioners for their appearance before him on January 5, 1988. 3. The first petition was filed on 14-12-1987 and the second petition on 15-12-87 on the same day, it was ordered that meanwhile, the petitioner will not be arrested in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants issued against them. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur has not become final is an applications for its rectification has been moved under section 254(2) of the Act and another application for making reference to this court has been made under section 256(1) of the Act, they have not been decided as yet and it cannot, therefore, be said that the said offences have actually been committed by the accused-petitioners. He further contended that in fact the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur is correct, there was no concealment of any fact and all necessary particulars about the bad debts and commission paid were duly submitted before the assessing authority. He also contended that the accused petitioners are not required for purpose of any investigation, no recovery is to be effected therefrom and there is no apprehension that they would influence the prosecution witnesses. He lastly contended that the accused-petitioners are responsible person, no useful purpose will be served by their arrest and it would simply tarnish their image. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the Department contended that the applications under consideration have been moved without first approaching the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur and on this ground alone, they should be rejected. He relied upon Hajialisher v. State of Rajasthan (1), IC lyya. vs. State of Karnataka (21) and Smt. Vijai Laxrni v. State (3) He further contended that the case relates to Jaipur district and petitions should have been filed before the Jaipur Bench and on this ground also they should be rejected. He relied upon Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State (FB), (4). He also contended that the said offences are economic offences and accused-persons are not generally released on bail in such cases. He relied upon Surja Ram vs. The State of Rajasthan (5), S. A. Ismail v. Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, Tiruphathi (6) and Vasudeo v. State of Rajasthan (7). He lastly contended that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the said offences are well established and the accused-petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail. 6. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the Department, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused-petitioner have approached the learned Sessions Judge; Jaipur and their applications moved under Section 438, Cr.PC have already been rejected. He further contended that in Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (8) it has been held that High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. 7. There is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners. He further contended that in Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (8) it has been held that High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. 7. There is no force in the first contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners. In P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal (9) it has been held that pendency of the assessment proceedings could not act as a bar to the institution of the criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Section 276-C and 277 of the Act. It has further been observed at page 700 as follows — "A mere expectation of success in some proceedings in appeal or reference under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings under section 276C and section 277 of the Act. In the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in issue and in an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not, how ever, mean that the result of a proceedings under the Act would be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently oil the evidence placed before it. Otherwise, there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever the person had failed to convince the authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not deliberately made any false statement or that he has not fabricated any material evidence the conviction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has correctly applied the rule regarding the maintainability of prosecution in such circumstances in Telu Ram Raungi Ram v. ITO (1984) 145 ITR III. We do not however, agree with the view expressed by the High Court of Calcutta in Jyoti Prakash Mitter v. Harmohan Chowdhury (1978) 112 ITR 384." 8. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Department that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving economic offences. We do not however, agree with the view expressed by the High Court of Calcutta in Jyoti Prakash Mitter v. Harmohan Chowdhury (1978) 112 ITR 384." 8. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Department that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in cases involving economic offences. It has clearly been held in Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra) that the High Court has power to grant anticipatory bail to a person accused of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. It has observed in Income Tax Officer vs. Gopal Dhamani, (10) as follows— "Mr. Dhankar and Mr. Bhandari appearing for the non-petitioners produced before me judgment of this Court in which Honble Justice M.B. Sharma granted anticipatory bail to Ram Ratan Dhamani, father of Gopal Dhamani in connection with same search and seizure and in that case the amount involved was more than Rs. 14 lacs." This case also finds reference in Vasudeo v. State of Rajasthan (supra) 9. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Department that the bail application should have been filed before the Jaipur Bench. It is well settled law that the case arising out of the area of Jaipur Bench may be filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and not vice versa. 10. In a similar case reported in Vasudeo vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra) it has been observed in paras Nos. 5 and 6 as follows :— 5. Keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case I deem it. proper to direct the accused persons to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur on or before September 21, 1987 which date is also notified to the Public Prosecutor with an application under section 437, Cr.PC and argue the same. It is expected of the learned Magistrate to decide the applications forthwith. The points sought to be raised in this application for anticipatory bail should be advanced before the learned Magistrate and he will in turn give due consideration to the same also considering that the petitioner Subhash Chand is a Government servant. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur on or before September 21, 1987. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur on or before September 21, 1987. The accused-petitioner shall how ever, notify the date of surrender 48 hours in advance to the learned counsel for the Department and meanwhile the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall not be executed". Similar order deserves to be passed in the present case also. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient to such the merits of the case. 11. Consequently, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur on or before July 21,1988. the accused-petitioners shall, how ever, notify the date of their surrender 48 hours in advance to the learned counsel for the Department and till then the warrants of arrest issued against them shall not be executed. With these obser-vations, the bail applications are disposed of.