R. D. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners challenge their prosecution under Section 276-C of Income tax Act 1961. ( 2 ) THE brief history of the case is that the petitioner No. 1, which is a firm, with petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and4 partners submitted Return of Income for the Year 1981-82 and disclosed a loss of Rs. 22,198/ -. They also shown the payment of interest to firm Murlidhar Kishan gopal to the tune of Rs. 34,721/- and further disclosed that they have received loan from B. K. Lunia to the tune of Rs. 21,000/ -. ( 3 ) THE Income-tax Officer did not accept this contention. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Income-tax, who accepted the appeal. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal by the Department of Income-tax. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and found that loss shown as above and the loan from Shri B. K. Lunia is net correct. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, thereafter, made a prayer before the Tribunal for reference of the case to the High Court, who refused to do so. As such they filed a petition in the High Court which has been registered as M. C. C. 147/89 and has been admitted for hearing. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of these proceedings the Income-Tax Officer filed a criminal case against the petitioners under Sections 276, 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. The Court recorded the evidence and framed charges. The petitioners filed a revision against the framing of charge which has been dismissed by 5th Addi. Sessions Judge, vide order dated 13. 8. 91. Now, therefore, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the continuance of two separate proceedings against the petitioner should be just and they will be put to double jeopardy. It has also been contended that petitioners hope to succeed in the high Court and therefore the whole exercise in the Criminal Court would not only be useless, but will amount to harassment to accused petitioners. As against it learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has submitted that both are independent proceedings. Merely because the petitioners are contesting the assessment order or appellate order it cannot be said that the prosecution is wholly baseless. As against it learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India has submitted that both are independent proceedings. Merely because the petitioners are contesting the assessment order or appellate order it cannot be said that the prosecution is wholly baseless. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the burden of proof would definitely lie on the respondent (Prosecution) to prove the case like a criminal case and the decision in the assessment proceedings may have a bealing on the basis of evidence adduced before that Court. ( 6 ) IT is an established principle that the preponderance of the probability is the rule of Civil Law while the proof beyond reasonable doubt is the rule of criminal law of course while assessing the evidence certain presumptions if provided in any special Act will also have to be taken into consideration by the Criminal Court. Civil Court decision or a decision of the Civil proceedings is relevant in a Criminal prosecution, but Criminal Courts are required to reach an independent finding and conclusion. ( 7 ) THERE is no provision in law which provides that the prosecution for the offences in question cannot be launched until the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee are completed. It is not law that no proceedings can be initiated at all under Section 276-C and Section 277 as long as some proceedings under the Act in which there is a chance of success of the assessee is pending. A mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal or references under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings under Section 276-C 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, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the Criminal Court. (See AIR. 1984 S. C. 1693. Para 5 ). It does not, however, mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the Criminal Court. (See AIR. 1984 S. C. 1693. Para 5 ). ( 8 ) IN view of the opinion expressed by the Apex Court of this country it cannot be said that merely because a proceedings under the Income tax Act is pending the prosecution under S5. 276. and 277 cannot be started or that the proceedings in any way deserves to be quashed. Since the two proceedings are different and the standard of proof in both the proceedings are also different, it would not be proper to quash the Criminal prosecution. Merely because proceeding under the Income-tax Act is appeal or reference in pending. In view of the discussions above, the petition are dismissed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1. 2. 1994. No further notice would be required. Petition dismissed. .