9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to try the alleged offences. 2. Nature of the alleged false estimates under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. 3. Compliance with the procedural requirements for filing the complaint. 4. Violation of principles of natural justice in initiating the complaint. 5. Attribution of mens rea to an artificial juridical person. 6. Competency of the complaint against the company due to the maximum sentence limitation. Jurisdiction of the Court: The High Court analyzed the jurisdictional aspect of the case concerning the alleged offences committed by the company and individuals. The court emphasized that the offences were completed when the false statements were delivered, which occurred in Kanpur. Therefore, it was held that the court in Delhi lacked jurisdiction to try the offences, as they fell within the jurisdiction of the court in Kanpur where the acts were committed. The court rejected arguments about convenience and emphasized that the place of the offence commission determined the trial jurisdiction, as per section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nature of False Estimates: The petitioners contended that the false estimates submitted were not considered as an "account or statement" under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. However, the court clarified that the essence of the offence under section 277 was the act of delivering false accounts or statements, irrespective of the assessment or penalty proceedings. It was established that the offences were complete upon the delivery of the false estimates, and the location of the delivery determined the trial jurisdiction. Procedural Compliance and Natural Justice: The petitioners raised concerns regarding procedural irregularities in filing the complaint, alleging a lack of preliminary inquiry and opportunity to be heard. The court acknowledged these contentions but primarily focused on the jurisdictional issue, determining that the lack of jurisdiction rendered the impugned order illegal and liable to be quashed. The court did not delve into other procedural aspects due to the jurisdictional ruling. Mens Rea and Competency of Complaint: An argument was presented regarding the attribution of mens rea to the company, an artificial juridical person, required for an offence under section 277 of the Act. The court addressed this by emphasizing that the offence was related to the act of delivering false statements, not dependent on the mental state of the company. Additionally, the court noted the limitation on imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment on a juridical person, rendering the complaint against the company not competent in this context. Conclusion: The High Court accepted the petitions, setting aside the impugned order and transferring the complaint to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kanpur for further proceedings. The court's decision was primarily based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Delhi court to try the offences due to the acts being committed in Kanpur, emphasizing the significance of the place of the offence commission in determining trial jurisdiction.
|
