Mohammad Wahajuddin, J.
1. This application has been moved by the three applicants, namely, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, under Section 482, Cr. PC, praying that the Criminal Case No. 2430 of 1980. (State through Sri B.K. Srivastava, Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Varanasi v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal), pending in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, may be quashed.
2. A number of grounds were taken but during the arguments, I have been addressed only on one point which concerns applicants Nos, 2 and 3. Admittedly, there was a discrepancy of Rs. 18,003 in the original return for the assessment year 1973-74 submitted on 30th July, 1973, and the revised statement of return submitted much later on September 5, 1975. Prima facie, a wrong statement was submitted earlier and it was submitted that this was due to a bona fide mistake in calculation. Whether the account was delivered knowing or believing it to be false or not believing it to be true as to attract one of the ingredients of Section 277, I.T. Act, is a question of fact which could be heard and disposed of in the light of evidence and rightly so, for that reason, I have not been addressed on that point. What the law requires is that the complaint should prima facie disclose the offence and I have been addressed from that aspect and it is submitted that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence by the accused persons, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, applicants Nos, 2 and 3.
3. I may refer to para. 3 as well as para. 13 of the complaint, annex. 7. In both these paragraphs what has been stated is that the return was filed, signed and verified by Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, accused No. 1. There is no averment in these two paragraphs of the complaint that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 delivered any account or statement or made any statement on verification which was false. Main part of Section 277 of the Income-tax Act runs as follows :
'If a person makes a statement in any verification under this Act or under any rule made thereunder, or delivers an account or statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable,...'
It is the person making any statement on any verification or delivering an account or statement which is false who has been made liable to punishment and this section does not create any vicarious liability. The Legislature also got conscious of it ; so another section, namely, Section 278B, was enacted by Amendment Act of 1975, which came into force from 1st October, 1975. By virtue of this section other partners have been made guilty. This provision does not have any retrospective effect. The provision, as it stood in 1973, referred only to persons making the statement, delivering it or filing the account. The only other provision under which some other person could be held guilty is contained under Section 278 of the I.T. Act. By that section person abetting or inducing in any manner, the other person or persons to make and deliver an account or a statement relating to any income chargeable to tax which is false, were also made liable for punishment.
4. I have gone through the entire complaint. I do not find any allegation therein directed against applicants Nos. 2 and 3 that they, in any manner, abetted or induced applicant No. 1 to make false statement on verification or to file false return or account. It was argued that the complaint is under some other sections under the Penal Code also but on a perusal of those sections as well, I do not find that any vicarious responsibility has been created. It is the person doing the act referred to in the various sections of the Penal Code mentioned in the complaint who has been made liable to punishment. The law is settled that if the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence by any person or persons, the court can exercise inherent powers to quash the proceeding against such person or persons. In the present case the complaint allegations do not disclose prima facie commission of any offence under the various sections mentioned in the plaint so far as applicants Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, are concerned.
5. I may also mention that so far as the provisions of the I.T. Act are concerned the prosecution under Section 278 as well as under some other sections requires the sanction of the Commissioner under Section 279 of the Act. In the present case the sanction is annexed. It relates to an offence under Section 277 of the I.T. Act only and there is no sanction for the prosecution under Section 278 of the Act. The order of the Magistrate summoning applicants Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, cannot be sustained.
6. In the result the application under Section 482, Cr. PC, is partly allowed and the proceedings against applicants Nos. 2 and 3, namely, AyodhyaPrasad and Ram Autar, only in pursuant of the complaint Criminal Case No. 2430 of 1980, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, namely, State through Sri B.K. Srivastava, Income-lax Officer, 'B' Ward, Varanasi v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, is quashed while the application of applicant No. 1, i.e., Rajendra Prasad, is dismissed.