BAHRI ( 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 N. Kumar, Income-tax Officer. Central Ci"cle XIX. New Delhi bad filed a criminal complaint against 10 accused for offences committed by them under Section 276 (C) (1) and 278 of Income-tax Act 1961. Accused No. 1 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. 1 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 and Loss Account and other details which was signed 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 198? to the accused for 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 piece of tubelights 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 inspite 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. 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 inspite 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 (C) (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. 1 and its President accused No. 2 filed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 214 of 1985 praying that the said criminal case be quashed and the accused be discharged. ( 3 ) SIX accused who are the Directors of the said company. have filed. Criminal Miscellaneous (M) 764 of 1985 praying lor the same relief. Shri P. D. Pasali, accused No. 8, one of the Directors also filed separate Cri. 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/adjour/postpone the proceedings till the re-assessment proceedings are complated by the Income-lax 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 completed by the Income-tax authorities in respect of assessment year in question. Shri Kapil Sibbal, senior counsel and Shri Atul Chitale who appeared in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 1985 and Shri P. G. 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 re-assessment proceedings are finalised in respect of the relevant yea. " by the income-tax authorities. " by the income-tax authorities. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Shri D. K. Jain. ( 5 ) SECTION 276 (C) (1) lay down that if a person wilfully 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 land 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 coun?el for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the assesstnent-proceedings for the relevant year, if completed and no concealment of income-tax is found out then the present comolaint would become infructuous and thus it is highly in the interest of justice and proceed ngs 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 tried to evade the duty by not accounting the poods taken out from their factory in their account books and thus the in?redients of the offence covered by Secti on 276 (C) (1) of the Act are prima facie madeout and the result of the re-assessment proceedings may or may not have any effect on the criminal trial and it would not be in the interest of justice to stay the criminal till the re-assessment prroceedines are completed. He has placed reliance n P. Jayappan versus S. K. Perumal. (1984) 149 T. T. P. 6696 (1 ). 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 (C) 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. 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 assessee 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 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 Criminal Procedure Code. if the disposal of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act which has a bearing on the proceeding before it is imminent so that it may taken into consideration also the orders to be passed therein. It was further observer 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 the complaint should be led as early as possible so that the evidence is not lost with the passage of time. The interest of justice reauired that the criminal trial should proceed expeditiously and be and another Vs. Shri N. Kumar and another completed at the earliest. The interest of justice reauired that the criminal trial should proceed expeditiously and be and another Vs. Shri N. Kumar and another 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-assessnaent proceedings being completed is immnent then a prayer be made to the Court concerned and the Court may exercise its discretion in postponing the final decision till the order in 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.