Income-tax appeals do not by themselves bar prosecution; limitation pleas involving mixed questions of fact were left for trial court consideration.

Pendency of income-tax appeals does not by itself bar criminal prosecution once the Assessing Officer has found commission of an offence; the prospect of reduction or waiver of penalty in appeal does not make the complaint premature, though a stay of criminal proceedings may be sought if appropriate. A limitation objection based on the complaint was not entertained in the quashing petition because it had not been raised before the trial court and involved mixed questions of law and fact, which are ordinarily unsuitable for determination under inherent quashing jurisdiction. The quashing petitions therefore failed and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether criminal proceedings could be quashed on the ground that income-tax appeals were pending and the prosecution was premature. (ii) Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether criminal proceedings could be quashed on the ground that income-tax appeals were pending and the prosecution was premature.

Analysis: Pendency of appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax did not bar the filing of a complaint once the Assessing Officer had found commission of an offence. The possibility of reduction or waiver of penalty in appeal did not make the prosecution premature. The appropriate course, if necessary, was to seek stay of the criminal proceedings pending disposal of the appeals.

Conclusion: The contention that the prosecution was premature was rejected and quashing was not warranted on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The plea of limitation had not been raised before the trial court. The question involved mixed questions of law and fact and was not fit for determination in proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner was left at liberty to raise the objection before the trial court.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was not entertained in the quashing petition.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for quashing failed, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of tax appeals does not by itself render a criminal prosecution premature, and a limitation plea involving mixed questions of law and fact is not ordinarily to be decided in inherent jurisdiction for quashing.

---