1997 (5) TMI 11 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions judge to set aside the sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act and Criminal Procedure Code to persons convicted under the Income-tax Act.
3. Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court to rectify an illegal order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a criminal revision against the Additional Sessions judge's order setting aside the sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Additional Sessions judge remitted the case to the Magistrate for proper sentencing, citing that the Probation of Offenders Act and Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to persons convicted under the Income-tax Act unless they are under 18 years of age. The petitioner contended that the Additional Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition after the Magistrate granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Citing a Division Bench decision, the High Court held that the revision petition in the Court of Sessions was not maintainable, and the Additional Sessions judge was not justified in passing the impugned order.

2. The High Court considered the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act and Criminal Procedure Code to individuals convicted under the Income-tax Act. It was noted that section 292A of the Income-tax Act excludes the benefit of these provisions for such offenders. The court highlighted that once the Legislature enacted this exclusion, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the High Court emphasized that illegal orders should not be perpetuated, and the court must exercise its inherent powers to rectify such situations. Consequently, the High Court directed the Magistrate to rehear the parties on the quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders.

3. In exercising its inherent powers, the High Court emphasized the importance of rectifying illegal orders and ensuring justice. Citing legal precedents, the court held that it was duty-bound to correct the illegal order passed by the Magistrate. The High Court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on a specified date, thereby disposing of the revision petition in accordance with the legal principles discussed in the judgment.