Inordinate delay and no tax advantage justified dropping income-tax prosecution over alleged profit distribution irregularities.

Prosecution under the Income-tax Act for alleged incorrect distribution of firm income was considered unsustainable where the partnership deed was produced, the profit allocation did not indicate concealment, and no tax advantage was shown. The Court treated the long, unexplained delay in framing charges and conducting the trial as material, noting that the accused could not be kept under prosecution indefinitely when the delay was not attributable to them. It emphasised that speedy and fair trial within a reasonable time forms part of criminal justice protection, and continued proceedings in these circumstances were contrary to the interest of justice. The proceedings were dropped and the miscellaneous petitions were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution arising out of the alleged incorrect distribution of firm income and the charges under the Income-tax Act should be dropped on the ground of inordinate delay, absence of tax effect, and bleak chances of conviction.

Analysis: The proceedings related to a small firm for assessment years long past, and the complaint had remained pending for years before charges were framed, with only a few witnesses examined. The Court noted that the partnership deed had been produced, the alleged discrepancy in distribution of profits did not show concealment, and no tax advantage appeared to have been obtained. It further held that the accused could not be kept in trial indefinitely where the delay was not attributable to them, and that speedy and fair trial within a reasonable time is part of the protection of criminal justice. In the circumstances, continued prosecution was considered contrary to the interest of justice.

Conclusion: The proceedings were dropped and the miscellaneous petitions were allowed.

---