JUDGMENT
Mrs. Padmini Jesudurai, J.
1. On the ground that Departmental appeals are pending, the petitioners seek to have the prosecution for offences under sections 193 and 193, IPC, and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act quashed. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal, First ITO . The above decision, far from supporting the petitioner, would indicate the principles the Supreme Court has laid down in matters such as this. The Supreme Court has made it clear that no criminal prosecution can be quashed merely because pending proceedings under the tax laws is pending. The criminal court is to decide the case on the evidence before it, no doubt giving due weight to findings which could have been rendered by the departmental tribunals and, if need be and if a request is made. To postpone its decision by a short period. The Supreme Court has also categorically stated that such a postponement ought not to frustrate the criminal proceedings. The criminal proceedings, therefore, cannot be quashed. Learned counsel also relies upon Ashwini Kumar Vadilal Patel (Dalal) v. P. T. Mehta. ITO [1989] 178 ITR 385 (Guj) and Gopal Lal Damani v. ITO contends that this court may at least give a direction to the learned Magistrate not to pronounce the judgment till the departmental proceedings are over. The decisions may be clear that this direction cannot be given by this court at this stage. If, after the conclusion of the trial and before the pronouncement of the judgment, the petitioner feels that he should make such a request to the trial court, he is free to do so and the learned Magistrate will deal with this request according to law. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.