9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under each count. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the respondent herein filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, as Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 1991. The Sessions Court considered the entire matter on the merits and passed his judgment dated July 6, 1993, confirming the conviction of the respondent herein, but reduced and modified the sentence imposed on him. The respondent is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three days for each of the offences under sections 276C(1)(ii) and 277(ii) of the Income-tax Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count and in default of payment of fine, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of 188 days in filing the appeal before this court against the order passed by the appellate court. Admittedly, the appeal was filed before this court only on May 23, 1994. By that time, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The petition to condone the delay, viz., Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1701 of 1994 itself was filed before this court only on June 27, 1994, as can be seen from the petition filed by the petitioner. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the complainant why the said delay petition was not filed along with the appeal on May 23, 1994. In support of the petition to condone the delay of 188 days, the complainant has produced an affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Prosecution), Office o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter-affidavit stating that there is absolutely no legal or justifiable ground stated by the petitioner and mentioned in the affidavit to condone the delay. According to him, the appeal filed by him against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was considered by the appellate judge on the merits and while confirming the conviction, the learned judge after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment and this, according to learned counsel, is fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the respondent, the grounds stated by the deponent in the affidavit is not sufficient to condone the delay since he had alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax. It cannot be said that he is not competent to file an affidavit explaining the grounds for not filing the appeal in time. He is competent to file an affidavit. It is also not compulsory that the complainant himself has to file an affidavit in support of the condonation petition. Any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case and the person who is in the know of things is competent to file an affidavit justifying the grounds for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, there is no merit in the above two contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent. But taking into consideration the fact that the accused had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court and the offence found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
