Court quashes Income-tax complaint citing right to speedy trial. Petitioner directed to donate to Relief Fund.

The court, exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashed the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer. The court considered the delay in the trial, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution. It directed petitioner No. 2 to deposit Rs.25,000 in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within four weeks as a condition for quashing the complaint, with an affidavit of compliance required.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking setting aside of ACMM's order and ASJ's order and quashing of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer.
- Delay in the prosecution of the case leading to a violation of the right to speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution.
- Request for imposition of appropriate costs upon the petitioners.
- Exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint case.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking the setting aside of the ACMM's order, ASJ's order, and quashing of the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer. The primary submission was regarding the income-tax return in question, highlighting that the tax effect had been paid, and the delay in the prosecution of the case.

2. The petitioner argued that the immense delay in the trial had vitiated the proceedings, citing a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the right to speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the right to speedy trial with the nature of the offense and other relevant circumstances.

3. The delay in the present case was noted, with the trial initiated in 1987 for the assessment year 1976-77. Despite over 19 years passing since the petition was filed in 2006, there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in examining other prosecution witnesses by the Income-tax Department.

4. The petitioner, through counsel, submitted that appropriate costs could be imposed, leaving it to the court's discretion. It was acknowledged that continuing the prosecution could have led to imprisonment or fines. Consequently, the court was urged to exercise jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint.

5. The court, considering the circumstances, decided to quash the complaint subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000 in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund by petitioner No. 2. The court directed the deposit to be made within four weeks, with an affidavit of compliance and receipt of payment to be filed on record.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the delay in the trial, the right to speedy trial, and the request for imposing costs. The court exercised its jurisdiction to quash the complaint, subject to a specified deposit, based on the circumstances presented in the case.

---