1978 (9) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the ITO to file a complaint under Section 195 of Cr.PC.
2. Applicability of Section 479A of Cr.PC.
3. Necessity of an enquiry under Section 476 of Cr.PC.
4. Severity of the sentences imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the ITO to file a complaint under Section 195 of Cr.PC:

The petitioner argued that the complaint filed by the ITO was not competent under Section 195(1)(a) and (b) of the Cr.PC, which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offences without a written complaint from the concerned court. The court clarified that the offence of fabricating false evidence is complete as soon as the fabrication is done, irrespective of whether the judicial proceeding has commenced. Therefore, the offence cannot be said to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court. The court held that the complaint by the ITO for the offence under Section 193 IPC was competent.

2. Applicability of Section 479A of Cr.PC:

The petitioner contended that the prosecution was barred under Section 479A of the Cr.PC, which requires a court to form an opinion that a witness has intentionally fabricated false evidence. The court found that the petitioner had not appeared as a witness before the Tribunal and had withdrawn the application for rectification of the mistake. Consequently, there was no question of the Tribunal forming any opinion under Section 479A. Thus, the bar of Section 479A did not apply to the facts of this case.

3. Necessity of an enquiry under Section 476 of Cr.PC:

The petitioner argued that an enquiry under Section 476 of the Cr.PC was necessary for offences under Sections 463 and 471 IPC. The court pointed out that it is not competent to hold a preliminary enquiry under Section 476 and the absence of such an enquiry does not vitiate the proceedings. The court opined that no such enquiry was necessary in this case.

4. Severity of the sentences imposed:

The petitioner submitted that the sentences were severe. The court disagreed, stating that the nature of the offences committed justified the sentences imposed. The court found no merit in the revision application and dismissed it.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the findings of the lower appellate court, affirming that the declaration was a forged and fabricated document brought into existence to support the petitioner's false claim. The petitioner was found guilty of fabricating the document, applying for its certified copy, and using it before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments regarding the competency of the ITO to file the complaint, the applicability of Section 479A, and the necessity of an enquiry under Section 476. The sentences imposed were deemed appropriate given the nature of the offences. The revision application was dismissed.