9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is for a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent dated December 20, 2006, as communicated by the first respondent by order dated February 1, 2007 in EOCC No. 36/1984, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for compounding or withdrawal of the offences under the Indian Penal Code in the light of the spirit behind the orders of the Supreme Court dated October 9, 2006, in Criminal M. P. No. 10302 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2000 and the order of this court dated April 21, 2006, in W. P. No. 11191 of 2006 and for further orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 6, 1989. The judgment of the trial court was also confirmed by the Principal Session Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by judgment dated August 19, 1986, in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1989. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition in Crl. R. C. No. 648 of 1996 and this court by order dated February 3, 2000 ( P. Soundarya v. ITO [2001] 249 ITR 77) acquitted the petitioner of offences under the Income-tax Act, however, found the petitioner guilty of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has moved to the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 969 of 2000 and the same is pending disposal. 6. As the petitioner was acquitted of the offences under the Income-tax Act, she made a representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. The Supreme Court taking note of the order dated June 20, 2006, passed an interim order dated October 9, 2006 clarifying that the pendency of criminal appeal preferred before the Supreme Court shall not come in the way of the Department from considering the petition for compounding or withdrawal of the prosecution in accordance with law. 9. Pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and by the order dated February 1, 2007, the first respondent has rejected the request as follows "The Department has already rejected your earlier petition for compounding of the offences/withdrawal of prosecution. A copy of the latest communication sent to you by speed post on December 20, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef Commissioner or Director General. In Asst. Commissioner (Assessment-II) v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd . [2003] 263 ITR 550; [ 2003]1 RC 635; 11 SCC 405 the Supreme Court held that compounding of an offence is not a right of the accused nor is it his unilateral act, it can only be done with the consent of the authorities, viz., the Chief Commissioner or the Director General. 14. In Concise Oxford Dictionary in Law , the meaning for the word "compound" is given as : (a) condone a liability or offence in exchange for money, etc., (b) forbear from prosecuting (a felony) from private motives, and law come to terms with a person, for forgoing a claim, etc…, for an offence. For the expression "compounding" In Ramanatha Aiyar's Law L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
