1955 (8) TMI 36 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session to try the accused for offences under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay to quash the committal of three accused to the Court of Session for trial on specific charges. The accused were charged with using a forged document before a Sales Tax Officer and cheating the officer to obtain a tax rebate. The trial raised a jurisdictional issue under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires a complaint from the concerned court for certain offences. The Sales Tax Officer, in this case, was considered a Revenue Court, empowered to decide revenue-related matters. The judgment emphasized that the Sales Tax Officer falls under the definition of a "Court" as per section 195(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereby necessitating a complaint from the officer for the charges related to the forged document. Consequently, the trial for the offence under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was deemed without jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the committal order by the Presidency Magistrate.

Moreover, the judgment highlighted a separate issue regarding the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Unlike the previous charges, section 420 was not covered under section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, allowing for the lodging of a complaint by any person and making the offence cognizable. As a result, the committal of the accused for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was considered within jurisdiction. The judgment acknowledged the oversight in not raising objections earlier in the trial process but concluded that the trial for the offence under section 420 should proceed. However, due to the procedural irregularities, the Court directed the quashing of proceedings related to the initial charges and ordered a fresh trial before a new jury specifically for the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the jurisdictional issues surrounding the trial of the accused for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the importance of compliance with procedural requirements outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code. The decision to quash certain proceedings and order a fresh trial underscored the significance of upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and lawful judicial process.