2022 (11) TMI 894

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 'IT Act,1961'') whereby the request of the petitioners for compounding the offence has been turned down. The facts of the case are in short as under: [1] The petitioners are the director of the Company M/s Chandraphabhu Homes Pvt. Ltd (respondent No.5). The company is engaged in the business of purchase, sale and development of plots. According to the petitioners without their knowledge, they were unlawfully removed from the directorship of the company w.e.f.12.04.2006 for which they have challenged before Company Law Board and vide order dated 12.09.2011, their removal has been declared null and void and restored status quo ante as on dated 12.04.2006. [2] Vide assessment order dated 21.12.2008, the Assessment Office....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [4] Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No.3177/2021 before this Court. Vide order dated 08.07.2022, this Court has directed the learned Appellate Court to consider the application afresh within the period of two months. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision, by way of the impugned order dated 10.12.2021, respondent No.1 has rejected the application for compounding as it is not a fit case for compounding the aforesaid circular due to the conviction. Thereafter learned Special Judge has also dismissed the application under Section 320 (5) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.08.2022 on the ground that the Court cannot direct respondent No.1 for compounding the offence. Now petitioners have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the application afresh without being influenced merely because of the conviction passed against the petitioners by the Criminal Court. [6] With the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter is liable to be remitted back to respondent no.1 to consider the application afresh in the light of the order passed by Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Dass (supra) and Madras High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case . [7] As clear from the subject of the guidelines issued on 14.06.2019 the offence under the IT Act is liable to be compounded under the provisions of Section 279(2) of the I.T. Act. Section 279 (2) of the IT Act provides....