9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax Officer and produced a person purported to be Ram Nath before him. The Income-tax Officer cross-examined Ram Nath and he was cross-examined by counsel for the firm. Ram Nath signed his statement. The said firm also filed an affidavit purported to have been signed by Ram Nath before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala. The signatures on both the affidavits and the statement dated August 5, 1977, are the signatures of Kesho Ram. Kesho Ram impersonated as Ram Nath. The Income-tax Commissioner authorised Shri J. B. S. Gill, Incometax Officer, Patiala, to file the complaint against Kesho Ram accused. The learned Magistrate accepted the prima facie evidence led by the prosecution and started trial after framing the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements of Ram Nath, son of Baru Ram, and the copy of which is exhibit P-7. P.W.-4, Shri J.B.S. Gill, proved exhibit P-4, the authorisation given by Shri S. C. Prashar, Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, vide which he was authorised to file the present complaint. He also proved the specimen signatures of Ram Nath. He further proved the statement of Ram Nath, exhibit P-9, recorded by him. P.W.-5, Dewan K. S. Puri, document expert compared the signatures of Ram Nath. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their help. Mr. A. K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to an unreported judgment of this court in ITO v. Emerson Paul Plastic Co. (since reported in [1991] 191 ITR 560 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding this difference in the position there is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the Magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under section 245(1) is a preliminary one and the test of " prima facie " case has to be applied. In spite of the difference in the language of the three sections, the legal position is that if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed. ' A question immediately arises that the stage for the accused to put forward his plea by making a statement under section 313 and of leading evidence in defence arises only on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and what would be the meaning left 'in rebuttal' referred to in section 245. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of the charge. In determining whether a prima facie case had been made out, the evidence of the witnesses is entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. Where much can be said on both sides, it would be for the trial court to decide whether to accept the evidence or not. For purposes of prima facie case, the same would have been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
