Limitation and prior notice in income-tax prosecutions: criminal complaint under Sections 276-B and 278-B need not await pre-launch hearing.

Prosecution for offences under Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act was not barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC because the prescribed punishment extends beyond the limitation periods covered by that provision, so delay in filing the complaint did not by itself justify discharge. A prior notice or pre-launch hearing was also not required, as no provision in the Act mandates such notice before criminal prosecution and the compounding framework does not confer a right to insist on it. The discharge order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside for further proceedings in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution for offences under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether notice or prior hearing was required before launching criminal prosecution for the said offences.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution for offences under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only to offences falling within the specified limitation periods. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 276-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends up to seven years, and therefore the offence is outside the ambit of Section 468. The delay in filing the complaint could not, by itself, justify discharge on the ground of limitation.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by limitation, and the finding of delay was erroneous.

Issue (ii): Whether notice or prior hearing was required before launching criminal prosecution for the said offences.

Analysis: The requirement of prior notice and hearing discussed in cases concerning civil liability does not govern criminal prosecution under Sections 276-B and 278-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no provision mandating a pre-prosecution notice, and the compounding mechanism under Section 279(1) does not create a right to insist on notice before prosecution is initiated.

Conclusion: No prior notice or pre-launch hearing was required before instituting the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter sent back for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Offences punishable beyond the limitation periods in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not barred from cognizance on that ground, and criminal prosecution under the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not require a prior show-cause notice unless the statute expressly so provides.

---