IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1743 of 2004() ------------------------- CC.3/1985 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- K.G.LAWRENCE, PARTNER, M/S.GEO SEA FOODS, COCHIN-682 006. BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, WARRIAM ROAD, COCHIN-682 016. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. VINOD SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: INTERIM ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.7513/2004 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1743/2004 DISMISSED 25.8.2011. SD/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl B.P. RAY, J. ........................................... CRL.M.C.NO.1743 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011. O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.3/1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offence), Ernakulam. A complaint was filed by the respondents against the petitioner and his partners, who are chartered accountants, on the basis of the original assessment order dated 31.8.1977 for the assessment year 1974-75 after obtaining required sanction under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act for commission of the offences under Sections 120B,193,196 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions reported in K.C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC), Edayanal Constructions v. Income Tax Officer ([2007] 288 ITR 134 (Ker), Yogendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (2009) 309 ITR 28 (Patna)] and Smt. Sheela Gupta v. CRL.M.C.NO.1743 OF 2004 : 2 : Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [(2002) 253 ITR 551 contended that once the order imposing penalty is set aside, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. The learned standing counsel appearing for the department submits that the Tribunal has modified the order of assessment and no penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. 4. Therefore, following the aforesaid decisions, I direct that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.3/1985 now pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offence), Ernakulam will be treated as closed. The Crl.M.C is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE. cl