JUDGMENT A. K. Awasthy J. appellant/complainant had filed appeal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside acquittal in complaint under section 276E/278B of Income-tax Act, 1961, vide judgment and order dated August 23, 1993, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in criminal case No. 5/90. case of complainant is that Shri N. K. Vijayvargiya was posted as Income-tax Officer of Ward No. 2(5) at Indore and he was public servant and he has filed complaint after taking sanction under section 279 of Income-tax Act, 1961, on January 22, 1990. That accused No. 1, M/s. Kalpana Dal Mills, was registered partnership firm and accused Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of firm and they were responsible to firm and in-charge of conducting business of firm. That firm M/s. Kalpana Dal Mills has given amount of Rs. 30,000 in cash on November 26, 1983, to Surendra Kumar and Tarun Kumar Modi. That on December 9, 1983, amount of Rs. 31,000 that on November 11, 1983, amount of Rs. 37,000 and on December 9, 1983, amount of Rs. 26,000 was paid to M/s. SAT Modi. That according to provisions of section 269T of Income-tax Act it was incumbent on firm M/s. Kalpana Dal Mills to make payment either by account payee cheque or by account payee bank draft. That on account of infringement of provisions of Income-tax Act accused persons are liable to be convicted for offence punishable under section 276E of Income-tax Act. accused persons have abjured guilt and pleaded that they have not committed violation of provisions of section 269T of Income-tax Act. That loan was not taken for limited period and it was agreed that amount would be paid or returned after notice. accused has examined Surendra Kumar in defence. learned trial court has held that in view of transaction by accused it was not necessary to make payment by account payee cheque or by bank draft and as such, provisions of section 269T were not violated and accused were acquitted. appellant-Union of India prayed for grant of leave to appeal. leave to appeal was provided by court thereafter appellant remained absent. In appeal memo it was alleged by appellant that in assessment year 1985-86 accused persons made cash payment of Rs. 30,000 on November 26, 1983, of Rs. 31,000 on December 9, 1983, of Rs. 37,000 on November 11, 1983 and of Rs. 26,000 on December 9, 1983, in contravention of provisions of Income-tax Act and satisfactory reply to show-cause notice was not given and as such, learned trial court has erred in acquitting accused. That appeal be allowed and respondent accused be convicted under section 269T of Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently argued that complaint against accused persons was filed on February 13, 1990, i.e., after April 1, 1989. That provisions of section 276E of Income-tax Act was removed after April 1, 1989, from statute by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, and as such, prosecution and conviction of accused under section 269T of Income-tax Act was not tenable. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on case of Shewaram and Sons v. Union of India [2003] 263 ITR 656 (MP) wherein view expressed is that on account of omission of section 276E of Incometax Act prosecution for punishment under section 269T was not permissible. similar view was expressed in case of Paramanand Das Brij Bhushan Das v. Union of India [2001] 249 ITR 328 (MP). It is categorically held in aforesaid cases that where company made payment in cash in violation of provisions of section 269T of Income-tax Act complaint after April 1, 1989, is not maintainable. However, appellant has failed to point out gross mistake in impugned judgment. In view of facts and law highlighted above, appeal deserves to be dismissed. appeal is without any merit and it is, hereby, dismissed. *** UNION OF INDIA v. KALPANA DAL MILLS & ORS.