Judgment B. P. Singh and J JJ. 1. Heard councel for the parties, 2. The petitioner who happens to be the Treasury Officer, Begusarai has been prosecuted under Sec.276 (B) of she Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended. A complaint was filed against him giving rise to complaint case no.279/92 (Trial No.2850/92) in the court of Presiding Officer Special Court. Economic Offences at Muzaffarpur. By order dated 30th March, 1992, the presiding Officer Special Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 276 (B) of the Act and summoned the petitioner for trial. 3. The charge against the petitioner in that at Treasury Officer he was required under Sec.192-B to make deduction of income tax while paying salaries of Government servants and to file return intimating such deduction. This obligation is imposed upon him by Sec.192 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner having made the necessary deduction did not submit requisite return within the time and therefore, committed an offence punishable under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was acting in his official capacity as Treasury Officer, and that the charge levelled against him is directly in relation to official duties performed by him. Assuming that the petitioner acted in dereliction of his duties, he certainly was performing his duties as Treasury Officer, and it cannot be disputed that he was acting under colour of office held by him. In these circumstances the Special Court was not justified in taking cognizance without previous sanction accorded by the State Government. In the instant pass since such sanction had not been accorded, the order taking cognizance is bad. The learned counsel for the department submitted that an offence under Sec.276-8 of the Act does not involve any element of mens rea, as distinct from an offence under Sec.276-C of the Income Tax Act. However, he could not point out any law or authority which could support the prosecution of the petitioner without sanction having been granted for his prosecution. Admittedly, evern on the basis of the complaint lodged by the department, the petitioner acted in dereliction of his duties failing to preform his obligation under section 192 of the Income Tax Act. That being the admitted position, prior sanction for his prosecution was absolutely mandatory. Admittedly, evern on the basis of the complaint lodged by the department, the petitioner acted in dereliction of his duties failing to preform his obligation under section 192 of the Income Tax Act. That being the admitted position, prior sanction for his prosecution was absolutely mandatory. That was not taken before the Special Court proceeded to take cognizance under Sec.276-B of the Act, and issued summons to the petitioner, The order taking cognizance is therefore, bad in law. 5. Accordingly the order taking cognizance dated 30-3-1992 is hereby quashed. It will however, be open to the respondent to prosecute the petitioner if so advised, in accordance with law. This application is allowed. Application allowed.