Karnataka High Court
The Income Tax Department vs Shri Srikar Reddy Vempati on 5 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6699
CRL.RP No. 385 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 385 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX (TDS), TDS CIRCLE 3(1)
H.M.T. BHAVANA, BELLARY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI SRIKAR REDDY VEMPATI
Digitally signed OPERATION DIRECTOR
by NANDINI M
S M/S SICON DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES
Location: HIGH PRIVATE LIMITED
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 037.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHANDRA SHEKARA K, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE DISCHARGE OF
RESPONDENT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 01.10.2019.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6699
CRL.RP No. 385 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in C.C.No.77/2018, discharging the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings was initiated before the Jurisdictional Special Court at Bangalore against 6 accused in C.C.No.77/2018 alleging that they had committed offence punishable under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Respondent herein is accused No.6 in the said case. Accused No.1 is the Company and accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the Company. The Trial Court vide the order impugned -3- NC: 2026:KHC:6699 CRL.RP No. 385 of 2020 HC-KAR had discharged accused No.2 to 6 in CC No. 77 of 2018 and as against the said order petitioner had filed Crl.RP.No.396/2020 assailing the order impugned insofar as it relates to accused No.2 who is the Managing Director of the Company. He submits that the said revision petition has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that accused No.2 is the Managing Director of the Company and the petitioner is only a Director along with the accused Nos.3 to 5. Petitioner was not participating in the day to day affairs of management of the Company and therefore he cannot be vicariously held liable on behalf of the Company. It is only accused No.2 Managing Director who was participating in the day-to-day management affairs of the Company. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6699 CRL.RP No. 385 of 2020 HC-KAR
5. The Trial Court had framed the following two points for determination in CC No. 77 of 2018:
Point No.1: Whether there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused No.1 Company for the offence punishable under Section 276B of the Act?
Point No.2: Whether the accused No.2 to 6 shown that they are not in charge of day today affairs of accused No.1 Company, hence liable to be discharged?
6. Vide the order impugned point No.1 was answered affirmatively and point No.2 was answered in the negative, for the reason that there was no evidence to the effect that accused Nos.2 to 6 were in charge of day-to-day affairs of accused No.1 Company. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court is common to accused Nos.2 to 6. The Co-ordinate Branch of this Court has set aside the said finding in Crl.RP.No.396/2020 which was filed by the petitioner as against accused No.2. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that even this Criminal revision petition needs to be allowed, reserving liberty to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:6699 CRL.RP No. 385 of 2020 HC-KAR the respondent herein to demonstrate before the Trial Court that there is no material to prove that respondent/accused No.6 was participating along with accused No.2 in the day-to-day management affairs of accused No.1 Company. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in C.C.No.77/2018 is set aside as against the respondent/accused No.6.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23