9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 258 - HC - Income TaxDefault u/s 277 - False statement in verification - petitioner no.1 imposed with a penalty of Rs.4000/- and petitioner no.2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- - Held that - As appeal of the petitioner was not heard on merits as the petitioner was confined in Central Jail, Jalandhar, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside relying on Md. Sukur Ali vs. State of Assam (2011 (2) TMI 514 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein held that in the absence of a counsel, for whatever reasons, the case should not be decided forthwith against the accused but in such a situation the Court should appoint a counsel who is practising on the criminal side as amicus curiae and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him. Order of Additional Sessions Judge set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Lower Appellate Court for fresh decision by following the principles laid down in Md. Sukur Ali s case (supra).
Issues: Criminal revision against judgment of conviction under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act.
Analysis: The criminal revision was filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioners were convicted, with petitioner no.1 facing a penalty and petitioner no.2 sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the appeal was not heard on merits due to the petitioner's confinement in Central Jail, Jalandhar. Citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the counsel contended that in such situations, an amicus curiae should be appointed. The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the importance of appointing a counsel in the absence of representation and ensuring a fair hearing for the accused. The High Court, in light of the arguments presented, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and remanded the case to the Lower Appellate Court. The court directed the case to be decided afresh, following the principles established in the referenced Supreme Court case. The parties were instructed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for further proceedings. The judgment concluded by disposing of the matter accordingly, providing a pathway for a fair and just reconsideration of the case based on the legal principles highlighted during the proceedings.
|
