1971 (8) TMI 60 - HC - Income Tax

Sanction For Prosecution - Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer to recall witness to prove the alleged sanction to prosecute the petitioner for offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of Magistrate's refusal to recall P.W. 1 to prove sanction for prosecution under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961.

Analysis:
The revision petitions were filed against the orders passed by the Magistrate in a case involving the refusal to recall a witness (P.W. 1) to prove the sanction obtained for prosecuting the accused under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The Income-tax Officer had initially mentioned in the complaint that the necessary authorization for prosecution had been obtained and was filed along with the complaint. However, during the course of the trial, it was pointed out by the accused's counsel that the sanction had not been exhibited. In response, the Income-tax Officer filed an application under section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code to recall P.W. 1 and exhibit the sanction. The Magistrate rejected this application, citing that allowing the prosecution to fill gaps at a late stage was not permissible under the law.

The High Court analyzed the situation and acknowledged the general principle that the prosecution should not be allowed to introduce new evidence or fill gaps after the case is closed. However, in this case, the only deficiency was the failure to exhibit the sanction to prosecute the accused. The Court noted that the complaint mentioned the authorization had been obtained and produced along with the complaint, but it was not explicitly exhibited during the trial. The Court emphasized that it is the prosecution's responsibility to bring such crucial evidence to the court's attention at the appropriate time. The Court found the reason of inadvertence provided by the Income-tax Officer unsatisfactory and held that recalling a witness at this stage to exhibit the sanction would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

The Court concluded that since the sanction was said to have been obtained and filed with the complaint, there was no necessity to recall P.W. 1 for this purpose. The Magistrate was entrusted with the discretion to consider the available sanction and proceed with the case accordingly. The Court directed that the parties should be allowed to present arguments on all matters, including the issue of the sanction. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions with the observation that the Income-tax Officer's request to recall P.W. 1 could not be granted, leaving the decision on the sanction to the Magistrate's discretion.