Partner retirement and tax-evasion liability: disputed facts and prima facie material justified refusal to discharge.

A partner seeking discharge from criminal cases alleging tax evasion was found not entitled to relief where the alleged suppression of turnover related to periods before the claimed retirement and there was no reliable material showing due intimation of retirement to the department as required by law. Whether he had actually ceased to be a partner and whether that retirement removed liability were disputed factual questions requiring oral and documentary evidence at trial. As the materials disclosed a prima facie case, the Magistrate's refusal to discharge was neither illegal nor perverse, and interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, claiming to have retired from the partnership firm, was entitled to discharge from the criminal cases arising out of alleged tax evasion and whether the Magistrate's refusal to discharge called for interference.

Analysis: The alleged suppression of turnover related to periods prior to the claimed retirement, and there was no reliable material showing that the retirement had been duly intimated to the department in the manner required by law. The question whether the petitioner had ically ceased to be a partner, and whether such retirement absolved him from liability, involved disputed facts requiring oral and documentary evidence at trial. The materials before the Magistrate disclosed a prima facie case, and the order refusing discharge was neither illegal nor perverse.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge, and the revisional court declined to interfere with the Magistrate's order.

---