Court denies petitioners' amnesty claim under circular P-1, emphasizes criminal complaint withdrawal rules.

The court dismissed the petitioners' request to quash the Commissioner of Income-tax's order and to benefit from the amnesty scheme under circular P-1. The court held that the petitioners did not qualify for the scheme as there was no genuine disclosure of income within the prescribed period. Additionally, the court clarified that an accused person cannot unilaterally withdraw a criminal complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court ruled against the petitioners, stating that the amnesty scheme did not apply to them and awarded no costs in the case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of exhibit P-4 order of Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Directions to accept a return filed by petitioners and withdraw C. C. No. 62 of 1987.
3. Interpretation of circular P-1 and its applicability to the case.
4. Whether the petitioners qualify for benefits under the amnesty scheme.
5. Request for withdrawal of a criminal complaint.

Analysis:

The petitioners sought to quash the exhibit P-4 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, which rejected their request for amnesty and also requested the acceptance of a return filed by them. The petitioners had initially filed a return for the assessment year 1983-84, which was later rejected, leading to an appeal that was also unsuccessful. Subsequently, they filed another return under the amnesty scheme, claiming the benefits promised in circular P-1. The petitioners argued that the circular had the force of law and should protect them from penal provisions. However, the respondents contended that the scheme did not apply to the petitioners as there was no disclosure of income by them, and the so-called disclosure was made after the expiry of the amnesty period. The court held that the scheme did not apply to the petitioners as there was no genuine disclosure involved, and their attempt to benefit from the amnesty was not valid.

The petitioners also requested the withdrawal of a criminal complaint, but the court clarified that there is no provision to withdraw a private complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court cited precedents to establish that an accused person does not have the right to seek withdrawal of a criminal complaint, and it is within the jurisdiction of the criminal court to handle such cases. The court emphasized that it would not adjudicate on disputed facts and that the criminal court should decide on the matter in accordance with the law.

Regarding the interpretation of circular P-1, the court acknowledged that circulars issued under the Income-tax Act may have the force of law but cannot override the law itself. The court deliberated on whether the circular governed the case and concluded that the petitioners did not qualify for the benefits of the scheme due to the lack of genuine disclosure and the timing of their actions. The court dismissed the original petition, stating that the scheme did not apply to the petitioners, and their contentions were rejected. The court also ruled that no costs were to be awarded in this case.

---