Allowing the  Criminal miscellaneous petitions  the Court held that  the tax deducted at source in all the cases was deposited with interest by the assessees and there was no reason to proceed with the criminal proceeding after receiving the amount with interest though a delay had occurred in depositing the amount. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Apart from one or two cases, the deducted amount was not more than Rs. 50,000. While passing the sanction under section 279(1) the sanctioning authority had not considered the Instruction dated May 28, 1980 issued in this regard by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings and the cognizance orders in the respective cases passed by the Special Economic Offices whereby cognizance had been taken against the assessees for the offences under sections 276B and 278B were quashed. Court referred the  Instruction F. No. 255/339/79-IT(Inv.) dated May 28, 1980, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes states that prosecution under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall not normally be proposed when the amount of tax deducted at source involved or the period of default is not substantial and the amount in default has also been deposited in the meantime to the credit of the Government. But no such consideration will apply to levy of interest under section 201(1A).  ITO v. Sultan Enterprises (2002) 256 ITR 185 (Bom)(HC), Shaw Walllace and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (No. 1) (2003) 264 ITR 241 (Cal)(HC), distinguished, Sonali Autos Pvt Ltd v. State of Bihar (2017) 396 ITR 636 (Pat)(HC), relied on.  (AY. 2017-18)