Interference with cognizance order refused where alleged suppression and other factual objections were left for trial.

Interference with an order taking cognizance is unwarranted where no patent legal infirmity is shown and the objections are essentially factual matters for trial. In proceedings concerning alleged offences under the Income-tax Act and the Penal Code, the complaint materials referred to alleged suppression of sales, purchases, stock and income, with discrepancies noticed during search and seizure. The HC held that these factual objections could be examined by the trial court at the stage of framing of charge, and no interference with the cognizance order was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order taking cognizance of offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The complaint and the materials relied upon showed alleged suppression of sales, purchases, stock and income, together with discrepancies found in the course of search and seizure by the Commercial Taxes Department. In the absence of any patent error of law at the stage of cognizance, the factual objections raised by the petitioners were held to be matters for consideration at the stage of framing of charge by the trial court.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cognizance order was not accepted and the matter was left to be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of without interference in the cognizance order, leaving factual defences to be urged before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an order of cognizance is unwarranted where no patent legal infirmity is shown and the objections raised are essentially factual matters for trial.

---