Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The applicant is the original complainant who filed complaint against the respondents for having committed offence under Section 276B read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has been registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 146/1992. The respondents moved the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur seeking their discharge from it, and by order dated 8-2-1999 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, arrived at a finding that there is no ground for proceedings against the accused as they have not committed any offence, on the ground that the respondents have already been saddled with penalty under Section 221(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, and therefore they cannot be prosecuted again on the same facts, for having committed offence under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, oh the application of principle of Double Jeopardy, as defined under Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, the respondent/original accused nos. 3 to 8 cannot be held vicariously liable for the default on the part of the complainant, and thereby discharging the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act.