JUDGMENT
Jayarama Chouta, J.
1. Since a common question of law arises out of these three criminal miscellaneous petitions, they could be disposed of by one common order. Hence I pass a common order.
2. In these three miscellaneous petitions, the petitioners are common. They request this court to call for the records pending in different C.Cs. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.
3. The respondent, the Income-tax Officer, Krishnagiri Ward, Krishnagiri, filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under sections 276C and 276E read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. The first petitioner is a registered partnership-firm and the second petitioner is the managing partner of the first petitioner-firm. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that during the course of the assessment proceedings of the first accused/petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87 ending March 31, 1986, it was noticed that the first accused has repaid deposits to a particular person by cash of more than Rs. 10,000. Summons were issued to the accused/petitioner and also show-cause notice was issued to them.
5. To the said show-cause notice, the accused/petitioners have replied sating that they have not violated the provisions of section 269T and the amount was paid in cash under reasonable circumstances. In spite of the reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent has chosen to prefer the above complaint against the petitioners.
6. The said proceedings pending before the court below are the subject-matter of these miscellaneous petitions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/income-tax authority. Two grounds have been raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners. The first ground is that the amount has been repaid towards the loan and not towards deposit and hence, it is not an offence punishable under section 276E of the Income-tax Act. According to the learned advocate, section 276E applies only to deposits and not to loans. The second submission is that if the amount has been paid in cash, without reasonable cause or excuse, it will amount to an offence under section 276E of the Income-tax Act.
7. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that whether it is loan or deposit has to be decided at the time of trial. Even in the complaint, at two places, it has been referred to as a deposit whereas in paragraph 7 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that the accused company has violated section 269T by repayment of loans otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. He has further submitted that it is a matter which has to be decided in the trial court after letting in evidence as to whether it is a loan or deposit. As far as the other ground is concerned, regarding the reasonable cause, as described in the Act, show-cause notice has been issued to the accused/petitioners and they have also replied to the said show-cause notice, and an application of reasonable cause presupposed to that show-cause notice (sic), which has been done in this present case. Under these circumstances, he argued that it is not a case where this court should interfere by invoking its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8. After considering the arguments advanced on both sides, I am of the opinion that it will be premature for me to decide as to whether it is a deposit or loan, and it has to be decided by the trial court during trial. Hence, I cannot give any finding regarding the transaction, whether it is a deposit or a loan. So far as the reasonable cause is concerned, it is pointed out in the compliant itself that in the reply to the show-cause notice the petitioners have admitted default under section 276E and pleaded their ignorance and, hence, the petitioners cannot take advantage of this also.
9. Without deciding the question whether it is a loan or deposit, it will not be proper on my part to give a finding in these criminal miscellaneous petitions.
10. Hence, for the reasons stated above, I see no merit in these petitions. However, it is open to the petitioners to take up these issues before that trial court. With these observations, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.