Prima facie offence in quashing proceedings: complaint alleged obstruction and destruction of evidence during an income-tax survey.

In quashing proceedings, the court examines only whether the complaint and supporting material disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, and it will not conduct a mini trial or assess evidentiary strength at the threshold. Allegations that, during a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, a person removed and swallowed a page from an impounded folder were held sufficient on their face to indicate obstruction of public functions and attempted destruction of evidence. Disputed facts, the absence of independent witnesses, and other defence contentions were treated as matters for trial, so no ground for quashing was made out and the prosecution was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the survey incident disclosed prima facie offences so as to warrant quashing at the threshold.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that, during a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petitioner removed and swallowed a page from an impounded folder in the presence of officials. In proceedings for quashing, the Court is required to see only whether the complaint and accompanying material disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, without undertaking a mini trial or evaluating the evidentiary value of the prosecution case. The existence of disputed facts, the absence of independent witnesses, and other defence contentions were held to be matters for trial. On the material placed, the allegations were sufficient to indicate obstruction of public and attempted destruction of evidence.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed prima facie offences and no ground was made out to quash the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The petition seeking quashing failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In quashing proceedings, if the complaint discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence, the Court will not undertake a mini trial or assess the evidentiary strength of the prosecution case.

---