JUDGMENT
A.S. Nehra, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing the complaint, annexure P-1, and consequent proceedings taken on the said complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, the order dated February 26, 1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the order dated March 18, 1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in a revision petition against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. The Income-tax Officer, Faridkot, filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 276C read with Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). On the basis of the pre-charge evidence led by the complainant, the petitioners were charge-sheeted under the abovesaid
provisions on July 21, 1989, for making false entries in the account books and also for making false verification regarding the stocks so as to evade income-tax. The case was thereafter adjourned for evidence of the complainant. On December 6, 1989, the petitioners filed an application before the trial court stating that since discrepancies to the tune of Rs. 59,485 in the stock of the petitioner-firm, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched against the petitioners, had been set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bathinda, vide order dated October 3, 1989, the complaint against the petitioners could no longer proceed and the proceedings be dropped.
3. Notice of this application was given to the complainant. A reply was filed on behalf of the complainant stating that the petitioners were being prosecuted for allegedly introducing a false cash credit entry of Rs. 50,000, dated November 19/20, 1970, and the addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000 had been confirmed by the appellate authority of the Department and the petitioners were being validly prosecuted for the same. It was also stated in the reply that an appeal had been preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the criminal proceedings was not maintainable.
4. The petitioners are being prosecuted under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act for allegedly introducing a false entry of Rs. 50,000 in the account books of the petitioner-firm with the intention of evading income-tax liability and also for making false verification of the stock of the petitioner-firm relating to the financial year 1976-77. It has been submitted that in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated October 3, 1989, the contention of the Department regarding the false verification of the stock to the tune of Rs. 39,485 has not been upheld by the appellate authority. In other words, the petitioners claim that the charge framed under Section 277 of the Act against them for not making proper verification of stocks is not legally maintainable in view of the order of the appellate authority. The complainant has stated in the reply that the Department has filed a second appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the matter is still sub judice in the Tribunal and, therefore, the application for dropping the criminal proceedings was not tenable. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial court held that even if the order passed by the appellate authority be taken at its face value, the same did not in any way absolve the petitioners of their liability under Section 276C of the Act for allegedly making a false entry in the account
books of the firm for evading income-tax liability. It was further held by the trial court that the effect of the appellate order dated October 3, 1989, would be seen when the case is finally disposed of and the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners’ revision petition against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on March 18, 1993.
5. Mr. S.M. Lall Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioner-firm has filed C. W. P. No. 5206 of 1985, which stands admitted and, therefore, the proceedings in the criminal complaint be stayed till the decision of the writ petition. He has further contended that since the matter regarding the addition of Rs. 50,000 is sub judice, the proceedings in the criminal complaint be stayed. In support of his argument, he has referred to the decisions in Shambu Nath v. Mohd. Bhat [1961] 2 Crl. LJ 580 and Swastika Metal Works v. Vimal Vashist [1989] 1 Recent C. R. 504, which are not applicable to the facts of this case.
6. Mr. R.P. Sawhney, advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that mere expectation of success in the civil writ petition cannot come in the way of institution of criminal proceedings under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act and in support of this argument, he has relied upon P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, First ITO [1984] 149 ITR 696, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court as under (at page 700) :
“A mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal or reference under the Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings under Sections 276C and 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. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. Otherwise, there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever an assessee or any other person liable under the Act had failed to convince the authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not deliberately made any false statement or that he has not fabricated any material evidence, the conviction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal court.”
7.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I hold that mere expectation of success in a civil writ petition cannot come in the way of institution of criminal proceedings under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it and the trial court is not supposed to await the decision, of the civil writ petition, which is pending in this court, since 1985.
8. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan’s case [1984] 149 ITR 696, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.