9911796707
TMI Blog1914 (3) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 193, 196, 199 and 471 they are subject to precisely the same infirmity if the Income-tax Collector is a "Court" within the meaning of cls. (6) and (c) of Section 195. On this matter, i.e., whether an Income-tax Collector is such a "Court" there is a certain amount of authority which, in the main, favours the view that he is a " Court." But a Bench of this Court decided in 1906 that an Income-tax Collector is not a " Court" within the meaning of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code: In re Kalidas . If he is not a " Court" within the meaning or that section it is at least to me difficult, inspite of the definition of " Court " in Section 195, to suppose that he can be a "Court" within the meaning of the latter section for the purpose of the two sections is very much the same and their connection is intimate. 2. In a very much later case (In re Nanchand (1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 45) another Bench of this Court decided that a "District Judge" determining the validity of elections under Section 22 of the District Municipalities Act (Bombay Act III of 1901) is a "Court" within the meaning of Cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the District Magistrate or the Collector, and because the Collector is a public servant to whom the Income-tax Collector is subordinate, therefore this complaint may be regarded as a complaint of the kind provided for in Clause (a) of Section 195. But that clause provides that the public servant concerned may either give a sanction or make a complaint and that seems to me to exclude the idea that a public servant may make a complaint by any form of delegation. It seems to me that he must make the complaint, if he wishes to take that course, personally. If he does not wish to take that course personally, the delegation is obtained by giving the sanction. Similarly the Collector as superior officer, though personally no doubt he might make the complaint, cannot delegate the making of a complaint to another. So I do not think that the proceedings in this case can be supported by that argument. 5. If the decision of the Full Bench is that an Income-tax Collector is a " Court" then I think the whole of those proceedings must be set aside. Shah, J. 6. I concur. This is an application to quash the proceedings arising out of a complaint lodged by Mr. T.P. Lakhia, the Residen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idendi of In re Nanchand (1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 45 clearly suggests that the conclusion in Kalidas's case is not correct. Apart from the decisions, the reason of the rule requiring a sanction or a complaint of the Court concerned in respect of certain offences is in favour of the view that the Income-tax Collector is a Court. In a recent case the Madras High Court has held that the Income-tax Collector is a Court : see In re Nataraja Iyer (1912) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 72. Having regard to the conflicting decisions, as well as to the-practical importance of the point, I think that the question formulated by my learned colleague should be referred to a Full Bench for decision. 8. The reference was heard by a Full Bench consisting of Scott C.J. and Batchelor and Beaman JJ., on the 23rd March 1914. 9. Velinkar, with Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, instructed by Soonderdass & Co., for the applicant. 10. S.S. Patkar, Government Pleader, for the Crown. 11. Velinkar.-In the present case, the sanction in question was granted on the 23rd July 1912. The complaint, on the strength of that sanction, was lodged on the 20th October 1913. The sanction has therefore spent itself by lapse of six months under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act which provides that, proceeding under Chap. IV of the Act shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding enacts a statutory fiction for the purpose of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. It cannot make the Income-tax Collector a Court: see the Queen- v. Assessment Committee of Saint Mary Abbotts, Kensington (1891) 1 Q.B. 378. Cur. adv. vult. Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. 21. The question referred for decision is "whether an Income-tax Collector is or is not a 'Court' within the meaning of that word as used in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code?" 22. The word " Court " is defined in the section by a limited and exclusive definition to mean a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court. It cannot be contended that the Income-tax Collector is a Civil or Criminal Court and therefore the only question is whether he at any time in the discharge of his functions under Act II of 1886 is a Revenue Court. 23. The term " Revenue Court" is not in genera but it has been used occasionally by local legislatures in this country in connection with the decision of questions relating to revenue by officers specially and exclusively em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
