9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code against the order of discharge, alternative prayer for leave to appeal against acquittal, lack of evidence adduced by the petitioner, application under section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code, discharge of the respondent due to lack of evidence, distinction between discharge and acquittal, exercise of inherent power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, reliance on legal precedents, maintainability of the petition, essence of the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, requirement of establishing knowledge of false verification for conviction, lack of prima facie evidence for offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. Analysis: The petitioner, an Income-tax Officer, filed a petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the respondent, an income-tax assessee. The petitioner alleged that the respondent submitted false returns for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, concealing income assessable to tax, with the intent to deceive and defraud the Income-tax Department. Despite several opportunities, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in support of the complaint, leading to the discharge of the respondent on the grounds of lack of evidence warranting conviction. The court distinguished between discharge and acquittal, emphasizing that acquittal follows a regular trial with evidence adduced after framing charges, which was not the case here. The court noted that the respondent's submission of a judgment from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not amount to an acquittal. The petitioner's failure to file a revision within the prescribed time barred the exercise of inherent power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to challenge the discharge order. Legal precedents cited by the petitioner were deemed distinguishable from the facts of the case. The respondent argued against the maintainability of the petition, citing a legal decision that the averments made did not prima facie establish a case against the respondent. The court highlighted the essence of the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, requiring the prosecution to prove the accused's knowledge of false verification for conviction, which was lacking in this case. Similarly, for the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, there was a lack of prima facie evidence or material adduced by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petition, dismissing it and upholding the order of discharge against the respondent.
|
