1973 (8) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty was levied for the false statement in return regarding claim for deduction. Criminal complaints were filed by Officer and Commissioner for offences under s. 277 of 1961 Act and other offences under Penal Code - These two petitions under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, have been referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question whether the previous decision between the parties in C.W. No. 189-D of 1965 acts as res judicata barring the petitioner from raising in these petitions those contentions which have been already decided against him in the writ petition

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the previous decision in C.W. No. 189-D of 1965 acts as res judicata.
2. Whether two identical complaints by the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax can be maintained.
3. Whether the complaints were accompanied by documents specified in section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code.
4. Whether the complainants were examined or their statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code.
5. Whether the complainants appeared in person before the Magistrate or were granted exemption.
6. Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted under both the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Indian Penal Code.
7. Whether cognizance of the complaints could be taken without compliance with sections 476 and 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code.
8. Whether simultaneous proceedings for imposition of penalty and prosecution can be taken.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Res Judicata:
The court examined whether the decision in Civil Writ No. 189-D of 1965 acts as res judicata in the current petitions under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The principle of res judicata, though partially codified in section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, extends beyond it as part of English common law and is applicable to India under article 372(1) of the Constitution. The court held that the principle of res judicata applies to both civil and criminal proceedings to prevent re-litigation of the same issues. The court concluded that the findings of law in the previous writ petition, based on admitted facts, operate as res judicata by way of issue estoppel in the current petitions, barring the petitioner from re-agitating those questions.

2. Identical Complaints:
The court held that the complaint under section 277 filed by the Income-tax Officer at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax satisfies section 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The identical complaint filed by the Commissioner serves to eliminate any doubt about the complaint being at his instance. Both complaints are treated as one complaint signed by both officers, causing no prejudice to the petitioner.

3. Accompaniment of Documents:
The court found that compliance with section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the filing of documents and providing copies to the accused, was unnecessary since the prosecution was based on a complaint, not a police report.

4. Examination of Complainants:
The court noted that the complainants, being public servants acting in discharge of official duties, were exempt from personal examination by the Magistrate under proviso (aa) to section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner acted within their official duties, satisfying the requirement for exemption.

5. Personal Appearance of Complainants:
The court held that the complainants had applied for exemption from personal appearance, and if the Magistrate had any doubts, he would have granted such exemption. The court found no fault in the complaints not being dismissed for the complainants' non-appearance.

6. Prosecution under Both Acts:
The court determined that the offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sections 193, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not identical, allowing for prosecution under both statutes. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act permits such dual prosecution.

7. Cognizance without Compliance:
The court clarified that the Income-tax Officer, though a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, is not a "civil, revenue or criminal court" for sections 476 and 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, compliance with these sections was unnecessary for the complaints to be valid.

8. Simultaneous Proceedings:
The court rejected the argument that simultaneous proceedings for penalty imposition and prosecution violate article 20(2) of the Constitution. It held that the imposition of a penalty under the Income-tax Act is neither a prosecution nor a punishment for an offence, thus not exposing the petitioner to double jeopardy.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The trial Magistrate was directed to prioritize and expedite the hearing of the complaints.

← Previous Next →