Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. In all these petitions, the petitioners are the accused in the trial Court and the respondent is the complainant in the trial Court.

3. The complainant who is the Income Tax Officer in all these cases had filed private complaint in the trial Court alleging that the petitioners herein (accused therein) who are the assesses of income tax and who had filed their income tax returns for the particular assessment years had also enclosed several Form No.16A (certificate of deduction of tax at source) under Section 203 of Income Tax Act 1961. According to all those accused, they were doing the contract work 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015 of M/s Raibag Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Raibag, district Belgaum (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Sugar Factory') and it was the said Sugar Factory which had issued those Form No.16As. The income Tax Authorities noticing that apparently there were several defects in Form No.16As submitted by the assesses (petitioners herein) enquired into the matter with the Bank as to whether the amount shown to have been deducted at source, as tax, had been credited to the Bank and got information that no such amount was deposited by the alleged deductor with the bank. Further, the complainant authority also enquired with the Sugar Factory only to know that no contract work was entrusted to any of these petitioners (accused), as such, the question of Sugar Factory issuing Form No.16As (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'TDS certificate') does not arise. Based on these inputs, the complainant proceeded to issue notice to all these 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015 assesses calling upon them as to why the said amount be recovered. The accused gave their reply statement that those TDS certificates (Form No.16A) were issued to them by the Sugar Factory. Since the complainant authority were not convinced, that the Sugar Factory has denied that it had issued those TDS certificates to the petitioners(accused), had proceeded to lodge a complaint against each of the present petitioners alleging the offence punishable under Sections 177, 182, 191, 192 and 198 of IPC. All these petitioners, who are the accused in those criminal cases appeared before the trial Court and filed an application under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. However, the trial Court by its impugned order dated 05.03.2013 rejected those applications. Against the same, the present petitioners (accused) preferred revision in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.136/2013, 137/2013, 138/2013, 139/2013, 140/2013 and 141/2013 before the Fast 100869/2015, 100870/2015, 100871/2015 & 100872/2015 Track Court II and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which also by its impugned common order dated 24.03.2015 dismissed the revision petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these criminal petitions.