Pre-complaint notice and territorial jurisdiction in transfer-reporting prosecutions under the Income-tax Act were both upheld.

Prosecution for breach of the transfer-reporting requirements under the Income-tax Act did not require a prior show-cause notice, because the statutory scheme allowed the accused to raise all defences in the complaint proceedings and no anterior hearing was mandatory before a prima facie inquiry. The objection to Delhi territorial jurisdiction also failed, as the offence was not confined to the property's location and the complaint showed statutory enquiries and competent authority action in Delhi; an offence partly committed within one local area may be tried there if the averments disclose part of the offence occurred within that forum. The challenge to the complaint and revisional order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution for violation of section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be assailed for want of a pre-complaint show-cause notice; (ii) whether the criminal complaint was liable to be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution for violation of section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be assailed for want of a pre-complaint show-cause notice.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not require a prior show-cause notice before launching prosecution for breach of the compulsory transfer-reporting requirements. The accused would have an opportunity to raise all available defences in the complaint proceedings. An anterior hearing is not insisted upon where the proceeding is only to determine whether a prima facie case exists and the accused will later receive a full opportunity of defence.

Conclusion: The plea based on absence of show-cause notice was rejected, and the prosecution was held maintainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal complaint was liable to be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.

Analysis: The offence was not confined only to the situs of the property. The complaint disclosed that statutory enquiries were conducted from Delhi, the Appropriate Authority at Delhi was the competent authority under the relevant notification, and the obligation to furnish the prescribed form rested on both seller and purchaser. Under the territorial-jurisdiction rules in criminal law, an offence partly committed in one local area and partly in another may be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any such area. A complaint can proceed where its averments disclose that part of the offence occurred within the forum's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected, and the Delhi courts were held competent to entertain the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was found to disclose no ground for interference, and the challenge to the complaint and the revisional order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for violation of the transfer-reporting provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, no pre-complaint show-cause notice is mandatory, and territorial jurisdiction may be sustained where the complaint prima facie shows that part of the offence or the relevant statutory action occurred within the forum's local limits.

---