9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 276C, 277, and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 before the amendment. 2. Legality of remanding the case for a fresh decision instead of a re-trial. 3. Justifiability of ordering re-trial based on the circumstances of the case. 4. Expediency of re-trial considering the time elapsed since the commencement of the trial. 5. Request to quash the prosecution and acquit the petitioners. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a revision under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against a decision setting aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners under sections 276C, 277, and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the amendments introduced in 1975. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial magistrate for a fresh decision, which the High Court found not in conformity with the law as re-trial should have been ordered instead of a mere fresh decision. The High Court emphasized that a remand for re-writing a judgment is not envisaged under the law, and re-trial should be the course of action under such circumstances. The High Court further analyzed the need for re-trial in the case, highlighting that re-trial should not be a matter of course and is usually warranted when the trial in the lower court has been illegal or irregular. In this case, the charges against the petitioners were found to be invalid as the relevant sections were not in existence at the time of the alleged offenses. Therefore, the appellate court could have directly acquitted the petitioners without ordering a re-trial. The High Court emphasized that the appellate court should have come to its own conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused persons instead of ordering a re-trial. Considering the significant delay in the trial proceedings since 1986 and the observations made by the appellate court regarding the illegality of the prosecution, the High Court deemed it inappropriate to order a re-trial. The High Court held that the appellate court should have exercised its jurisdiction to decide on the guilt of the accused based on the existing facts and circumstances without necessitating a re-trial. The court rejected the request to quash the prosecution and acquit the petitioners, emphasizing that the impugned order of remand was unsustainable in law, and directed the appellate court to re-admit the appeal and decide the case in accordance with the law, without causing further delays. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment of the appellate court, and directed the court to re-admit the appeal for a proper decision in line with legal requirements, ensuring that the parties are present for the hearing without the need for further notice.
|
