9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as 'Act') were conducted by the Income Tax Authority on 13th September, 1983 at the residential premises of one Sh. Vipin Mehra and one Sh. Prem Prakash. The investigation revealed that the modus operandi adopted for this purpose was that the donations were purportedly made in the names of trusts and institutions which had been approved either for the purpose of weighted deduction under Section 35 CCA and 35(1) (ii) of the Act. 3. In the present case, proceeds of one of the cheques were withdrawn by depositing it in third party account and the other by depositing it in bogus accounts. The accused company allegedly issued the cheque/bankers cheque in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of two approved trusts/institutions namely (1) Hastimal Sancheti Memorial Trust, Poona (hereinafter referred to as 'HSMT') of Rs. 10 lakhs and (2) Poona Medical Foundation, Poona (hereinafter referred to as 'PMF') of Rs. 15 lakhs and subsequently got the cheques/bankers cheques encashed through bogus accounts. 4. The modus operandi in regard to the alleged donation of Rs. 10 lakhs was by issuing a special crossed "payee's A/c. only" cheque bearing number PWV 331524 dated A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 236606 dated June 29, 1983. An application for the purchase of banker's cheque made to the bank was originally for the issue of banker's cheque in favor of one M/s. Astra Commercial P. Ltd. but was subsequently modified under the signatures of accused Respondent No. 2, N. R. Dongre, and accused Vinod Singhania, Respondent No. 7, and the bank was requested to issue the cheque in favor of P. M. F. The proceeds of the banker's cheque were collected by the State Bank of Patiala, Shradha Nand Marg, Delhi, and were credited to the bogus account in the name of P.M.F. On the same day, proceeds of another banker's cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs purchased by M/s. Astra Commercial P. Ltd., a sister concern of the company Respondent No. 1, were also credited to the account of P.M.G. An account in the name of P.M.F. was opened on August 13, 1983, and the account opening form was not signed notwithstanding the usual practice and requirement in that regard but a rubber facsimile which appeared to be of the signatures of Dr. Grand, Managing Trustee of P. M. F., was affixed. Accused Desh Raj (now dead), was authorised to operate the said account even though never authorised by P.M.F. to open or operate an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision petition. The power of this Court and that of the Court of Sessions, so far as a revision is concerned, are concurrent. The intention of the Legislature under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. is definite and the scheme therein is unambiguous and clear. Sub section (3) does not permit the repetition in exercise of jurisdiction of revision under section 397(1) Cr.P.C. It curtails the chance availing second remedy and therefore, an unsuccessful revisionist in the court of Sessions cannot be entertained for the second time by the High Court. In fact, sub section (3) intends and aims to secure finality. The choice lies with the revisionist either to file revision directly in this Court or in the Sessions Court. Having availed the remedy by filing revision before the Sessions Court, one cannot be permitted to avail second chance to file revision in view of the bar of sub section (3) of section 397 Cr.P.C. 9. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner was that the return of the income tax for the assessment year 1984-85 was filed by the respondents on 2.6.1984, whereas the search was conducted on 13.9.1983. It was submitted in this regard that the respondents had sufficient time to manipulate their accounts in order to evade their liability and they had shown in the income tax return the aforesaid amount of Rs.25 lac as recoverable. It was submitted that the findings of learned ASJ that it was only a preparation to conceal the income was apparently incorrect since the acts of respondents were squarely covered within the Explanations (i) and (iv) to Section 276 C(2) of the Income Tax Act. It was also submitted that the respondents earlier challenged the order of summoning by way of filing a petition which was dismissed by this Court on 29.8.1986 whereby this court categorically recorded that on the averments made in the complaint prima facie case was made out against the respondents. 12. The above narrated facts clearly demonstrate the conduct of respondents. They clearly indicate the abnormal dealings and the procedure adopted. The said facts also point finger towards the guilt of respondent no.1 and its functionar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttempt to evade tax. The said clauses of Explanation are sufficient for continuation of the prosecution against the respondents under the Act. In the given facts and circumstances, the findings of learned ASJ that it was only a preparation is apparently ridiculous. 15. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charges it is not obligatory for the Judge of trial to consider any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording of final guilt or otherwise of accused, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Further at this stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, leading the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence is enough. Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2018, R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Ant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
