9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Allegations of concealing income and making a wrong verification in the income tax return. 3. Defense of the accused claiming ignorance due to illiteracy and denial of filing any return knowingly. 4. Speedy trial as a ground for leniency in sentencing. Analysis: The judgment delivered by Justice A. S. Nehra of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pertains to a case where the petitioner was convicted under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under each section, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner's appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to a revision petition before the High Court. The case revolved around the accused's alleged concealment of income related to the sale of property and a wrong verification in the income tax return for the assessment year 1977-78. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness testimony and documents, to support the allegations of income concealment. In response, the accused, an illiterate housewife, denied the allegations under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She claimed ignorance of the contents of the return, attributing it to her illiteracy and limited knowledge, stating that she only knows how to sign documents. The accused also contested the valuation of the property in question and the circumstances leading to the alleged concealment of income. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel did not contest the conviction but focused on seeking leniency in sentencing based on the grounds of a speedy trial. The counsel argued that the prolonged litigation, spanning over 10 years, had caused mental harassment to the petitioner, an illiterate lady. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the counsel urged for a reduction in the sentence due to the extended duration of the legal proceedings and the petitioner's current bail status. After considering the arguments presented, Justice A. S. Nehra found merit in the plea for leniency based on the prolonged litigation and mental harassment endured by the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court partially allowed the revision petition, limiting the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone, thereby foregoing further imprisonment. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances of the case, including the impact of prolonged legal proceedings on the petitioner, in determining the appropriate course of action regarding sentencing.
|
