IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3957 of 1998 1. RAJ KUMAR BHATIA 2. Ram Krishna Bhatia Both sons of late Haveli Ram Bhatia, resident of Devi Sthan Road, P.O., P.S. Arrah District Bhojpur at Arrah ... petitioners Versus Union of India Through the department of Income Tax .... .. opposite party ----------- 5 21-04-2010 Heard Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the Income Tax department. In my view this application was wrongly admitted and stay was granted of further proceeding before the court below because earlier the petitioner had approached this court against the criminal proceeding on the ground that his appeal under the Income Tax Act has been allowed. The appellate order was annexed as annexure-1 to the earlier application and by order dated 4-11-93 (annexure-4) this court disposed of that application after hearing the parties and directed the petitioners to bring to the notice of the learned trial court the relevant facts and the appellate order in his favour and it was observed that if it is so done, learned trial court shall consider the same and shall pass necessary order in accordance with law. It was mentioned in the order dated 4-11-93 (annexure-4) that till the matter is adjudicated by the trial court upon filing of appellate court’s judgement the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall not be executed. From the subsequent order dated 11-2-98 (annexure-5) it appears that only an application u/s 205 of the Cr. P.C filed on behalf of the accused persons was considered and while the same 2 was allowed in respect of one of the accused, a lady, it was not allowed in case of other accused. According to learned counsel for the petitioners since the appellate order was placed before the trial court, the order contained in annexure-5 will amount to adjudication by the trial court as required by earlier order contained in annexure-4 and hence, the petitioners got a fresh cause of action to move this court for quashing of the criminal case. The aforesaid submission is without any substance. The earlier order of this court required the trial court to adjudicate in accordance with law and a privilege was given to the petitioners by staying the execution of warrant till adjudication. This court is of the considered opinion that the matter has yet not been adjudicated by the trial court which was required by order of this court contained in annexure-4 which has attained finality. It is not possible to ignore the order dated 4-11-93. Hence, this application, as prayed, is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty that petitioners may approach the trial court and seek adjudication in accordance with law as directed by order dated 4-11-93 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 15102/93. If any of the petitioners is dead then this fact may be brought to the notice of the court below which shall get the assertion verified and then proceed in accordance with law. In the peculiar facts of this case, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner No.1 seeking privilege u/s 205 Cr. P.C is 3 found fit to be allowed. Hence, the trial court is directed to give that privilege to petitioner No.1 with appropriate precaution. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)