Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 389 (PAT)

Sanjay Sinha v. Union Of India

2004-04-06

NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated March 18, 2000, passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 78(C) of 2000. By the impugned order the learned special judge took cognizance of the offence u/s. 275A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner and has directed for issuance of summons against him. 3. Learned senior counsel, Shri P. N. Pandey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew the attention of the court to paras. 4 and 5 of the complaint petition and submitted that the Income-tax Department had issued prohibitory orders not with regard to the account in question of the petitioner but with regard to specified accounts as mentioned therein. In this context he also referred to annexure B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Income-tax Department to submit that the prohibitory orders u/s. 275A were specified and individualistic in nature. 4. In the present case it is apparent that the Income-tax Department had not passed any prohibitory orders with regard to the account in question where transactions appear to have taken place. This fact would also be apparent from para. 8 of the complaint petition filed by the Income-tax Department where it is stated that the information about availability of the said account in respect of which prohibitory orders had not been issued were made available from the CBI. It is also stated that in pursuance thereof the CBI had also instituted a separate prosecution against the petitioner and the bank authorities. This court is not concerned with the same. 5. In view of the fact that the Income-tax Department had issued prohibitory orders with regard to specified bank accounts and that no transaction has admittedly taken place with regard to the accounts in respect of which the prohibitory order was subsisting, no offence prima facie can be said to have been made out on the basis of the averments made in the complaint. The fact that the complaint itself admits that the operation of the account was with regard to one in which there was no prohibitory order, the court comes to the conclusion that no offence u/s. 275A of the Income-tax Act can be said to have been committed. The fact that the complaint itself admits that the operation of the account was with regard to one in which there was no prohibitory order, the court comes to the conclusion that no offence u/s. 275A of the Income-tax Act can be said to have been committed. The impugned order of cognizance on the basis of the very complaint itself is not sustainable and is quashed. The proceedings in the Complaint Case No. 78(c) of 2000 accordingly are also quashed. 6. This court is not concerned with the prosecution instituted by the CBI against the petitioner and the concerned bank officials with regard to the withdrawals from this bank account Which is alleged to have been done in conspiracy and collusion. Law shall take its own course in that regard. 7. This application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.