9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d non-existing firms to the knowledge of the concerned persons. In para. 30 of the complaint, it was stated that accused No.1 in collusion with other accused at serial numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 had fabricated false evidence in supporting the false accounts to avoid payment of rightful taxes. In para. 41 of the complaint, it was alleged that accused No. 1 in collusion with accused No. 7 had fabricated false evidence in supporting these false accounts. In para. 42 of the complaint, it was stated that the accused persons mentioned above have committed offence punishable under ss. 277/278 of the I.T. Act. It was prayed that the accused be punished according to law. In due course, the Chief judicial Magistrate, Meerut, summoned the accused. Thereupon, M/s. Modi Industries Ltd., Modinagar, through its chairman, Sri K. N. Modi, came to this court under s. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner-company. The grounds urged in support of the petition were that according to law, as it stood at the relevant time, offences under ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act were punishable with minimum imprisonment of six months only. A company which is a juristic person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he underlined words have been substituted for "punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both " by the Finance Act, 1964, with effect from April 1, 1964. Thus, the position is that prior to April 1, 1964, this provision provided for punishment with simple imprisonment or with fine or with both. Between April 1, 1964, and October 1, 1975, the offence was punishable only with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than six months under clause (i) or shall not be less than three months under clause (ii). After October 1, 1975, the offence under s. 277 became punishable with imprisonment and with fine. Section 278 of the Act deals with abetment of false, returns, etc. An offence under it was punishable prior to April 1, 1964, with, simple imprisonment or with fine or with both. With effect from April 1, 1964, and till September 30, 1975, the offence of abetment under s. 278 was punishable with rigorous imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years. With effect from October 1, 1975, an offence under s. 278 became punishable with a term of rigorous imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any of the preceding sub-clauses. Accordingly, the word " persons " occurring under ss. 277 and 278 will, in view of the definition clause, include a company. A company is hence prima facie liable to be prosecuted for commission of an offence under ss. 277 and 278. The law is well settled that a corporation cannot be subjected to bodily punishment. In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd. [1944] 1 KB 146 (KB), it was held that though a company cannot be found guilty of several criminal offences, such as treason or other offences for which it is provided that death or imprisonment is the only punishment, yet a company can be convicted of certain other offences. In Rex v. I.C.R. Haulage Ltd. [1944] 1 All ER 691, the Court of Appeal held (p. 693): " Offences for which a limited company cannot be indicted are exceptions to the general rule arising from the limitations which must inevitably attach to an artificial entity, such as a company. Included in these exceptions are the cases where, from its very nature, the offence cannot be committed by a corporation, for example, perjury, an offence which cannot be vicariously committed or bigamy, am o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Madras High Court in A. D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar. In that case, the complaint was lodged under s. 277 against a firm and its partners for having knowingly filed a false return of income on January 5, 1963, for the accounting period April 1, 1961, to March 31, 1962. As mentioned above, in the year 1963 an offence under s. 277 was punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both. At that time such an offence was not punishable only with imprisonment. In that case the firm which was treated as a juristic personality could be and in fact was sentenced to fine. There was, hence no difficulty in its being prosecuted. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the decision of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] Cri LJ 1148. In that case, under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a punishment of imprisonment and with fine could be imposed. By a process of interpretation and reading down, the Full Bench held that if punishment of imprisonment could not possibly be imposed upon a juristic person it was permissible to award the punishment of fine onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
