Income-tax prosecution survives appellate relief and administrative instructions; criminal liability must be tested independently on the evidence.

A criminal complaint for offences under the Income-tax Act cannot be quashed merely because assessment or appellate proceedings have produced observations or relief, since criminal liability must be examined independently on the evidence before the criminal court. Due regard may be had to orders passed under the taxing statute, but they do not bar prosecution where the complaint discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences. Departmental instructions cannot override the Act, and the age of one accused, by itself, was not a legal ground to quash the prosecution. The complaint was therefore not liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint for offences under the Income-tax Act could be quashed on the basis of appellate findings, departmental guidelines, and the age of one accused.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed ingredients of the alleged offences under the Income-tax Act. The fact that the assessment or appellate proceedings had resulted in certain observations or relief did not bar criminal prosecution. The criminal court was required to consider the matter independently on the evidence before it, though due regard could be given to orders passed under the taxing statute. The departmental instructions relied on by the petitioners could not override the express provisions of the Income-tax Act. The age of the second petitioner also did not furnish a legal ground for quashing the prosecution.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency or outcome of income-tax proceedings does not by itself preclude prosecution for offences under the Income-tax Act, and criminal liability must be determined independently; administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions.

---