1955 (8) TMI 46 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Session to try the accused for offenses under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The Additional Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court, questioning the committal of three accused to the Court of Session for Greater Bombay for trial on two offenses. The first offense involved the accused using a forged document before a Sales Tax Officer, leading to charges under section 471 read with section 467 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second offense related to cheating the Sales Tax Officer by presenting false declarations, resulting in charges under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial revealed a jurisdictional issue under section 195(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring a complaint from the concerned officer for offenses involving documents produced in court proceedings.

The Sales Tax Officer's role was pivotal in the case, as the accused's actions directly impacted the assessment of sales tax. The Sales Tax Officer, acting under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, had powers akin to a court, including summoning individuals, examining them under oath, and compelling document production. The Full Bench judgment established that officers like Income-tax Collectors are considered Revenue Courts, and Sales Tax Officers, empowered to decide revenue-related matters exclusively, fall under this category. Consequently, the Sales Tax Officer's status as a Revenue Court implied that offenses committed before him required a written complaint for the court to take cognizance, as per section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

While the accused were properly committed for the offense under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the jurisdictional flaw existed concerning the offenses under section 471 read with section 467. As section 420 was not subject to the restrictions of section 195, the committal for this charge was deemed valid. However, to rectify the jurisdictional error, the High Court directed the quashing of proceedings related to the offense under section 471 read with section 467 and ordered a fresh trial before a new jury for the offense under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This decision aimed to ensure a fair trial and adherence to legal procedures, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional requirements in criminal proceedings.