9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, Special Court established under Section 280-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- As per the first schedule of Cr.P.C. classification of offence against other laws if offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only, it is classified as non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. As the offences stated in Section 279-A of the I.T. Act, 1961 are non-cognizable within the meaning of Cr.P.C., they are triable by a Magistrate. Offences registered by or against elected representatives are now tried by Special Courts established and it is presided over by a Sessions Judge. That Special Court which is presided over by a Sessions Judge can be said to come under clause (b) - any other Court . The Special Court for economic offences, Bangalore, is presided over by an officer of the rank of Magistrate and does not come under clause (b) - any other Court . The appeal against convictions for offence under Chapter XXII of I.T. Act, 1961 lie to the Sessions Judge u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent accused has challenged the judgment of convict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly all the appeals are dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR For the Appellant : By Sri E I Sanmathi, Advocate. For the Respondent : By Sri. S. Annamalai, Advocate for Respondent No.1) By Sri G S Nagharish, Advocate for R1 R3 Sri G.R. Srinivas, Advocate for R2) By Sri Chandrashekara K, Advocate. JUDGMENT PER SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, 1. The Income Tax Department has filed these appeals under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. The details of these appeals are as under: Sl.No Crl Appeal (H.C) Trial Court name C.C.NO. with judgment Date Offence Sentence 1 1339/2020 Spl. Court for economic offences at Bengaluru 148/2018 dtd. 19/10/2019 Sec 276 B R/w 278B of I.T Act. 1961 with Rule 30 25,000/- 2 925/2021 Same 147/2018 Dtd. 19/10/2019 Same 25,000/- 3 950/2021 Same 149/2018 dtd. 19/10/2019 Sec 276B 25,000/- 4 954/2021 Same 101/2018 dtd. 16/11/2019 Sec 276 B R/w 278B of I.T Act. 1961 with Rule 30 20,000/- 5 1207/2021 Same 74/2019 dtd. 19/12/2020 Sec 276B 20,000/- 6 1222/2021 Same 68/2018 dtd. 23/10/2020 Sec 276B 20,000/- 7 1223/2021 Same 77/2018 dtd. 15/02/2020 Sec 276B 1,00,000/- 8 1224/2021 Same 86/2018 dtd. 28/10/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r pursuant to which the above notification is issued reads as under: PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Subject : Special Court Constitution of for trial of Economic Offences at Bangalore from 13.09.1982 Orders reg. --- ORDER NO. LAW 106 LCE 79/DATED 01.09.1982 Read: 1. Letter No. 2-1-1979 Judl. dated 27-4-1979 from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Correspondence ending with letter C.No. VIII/17/21/79 Legal dated 18-10-79 from the collector of Central Excise, Central Revenues Building, Bangalore. 3. Letter No.23-6-79 dated 14-4-81 and Wireless Messages under No.23/5/82 Jus dated 3-5-82, 27-4-82, 26-5-82-and 16-6-82 from the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 4. Correspondence ending with letter No.GOB.393/1979 dated 21-8-1982 from the Registrar, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. PREAMBLE : The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, in their letter No.2-1-79 Judl. Dated 27-4-79 have suggested to this Government that additional courts may be established exclusively for dealing with economic offences, in accordance with the 47th report of the law Commission recommending the establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Practices Act, 1969. 4. Another notification dated 04.02.1985 bearing No. LAW 139 LCE 79 has been issued by the Government of Karnataka which reads thus: NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the Provision to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 read with clause (1) of Section 2, and Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act. No. 2 of 1974) the Government of Karnataka, in consultation with the High Court of Karnataka, hereby makes the following amendment to the Notification No. LAW 196 LCE 79 dated 01.09.1982, namely : In the schedule to the said Notification after serial number 12, the following shall be inserted: 13. The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (Act No. 20 of 1966) 14. The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act No.19 of 1952) 5. The Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class which has been established by the above notification dated 01.09.1982 for trial of offences under the Central Acts is specified in the schedule as having jurisdiction within the local areas of revenue district of Bengaluru including Bengaluru metropolitan areas. 6. The Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) (Central Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Magistrate First Class, Maddur (xiv) II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maddur (xv) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandavapura Mandya 8 (i) III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru (ii) Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Krishnarajanagara (iii) III Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysuru (iv) V Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mysuru Mysuru 9 i) Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class Kunigal (ii) Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gubbi (iii) Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tiptur (iv) IV Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumakuru Tumakuru 10 Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi Udupi 11 Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola Uttara Kannada Karwar 7. The offence for which the respondents accused have been convicted are all under Chapter XXII of I.T. Act, 1961. The following provisions of said Chapter XXII deals with designating Courts of Magistrate First Class as Special Court, offences triabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor: Provided that the Central Government may also appoint for any case or class or group of cases a Special Public Prosecutor. (2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this section unless he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years, requiring special knowledge of law. (3) Every person appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this section shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of clause (u) of section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the provisions of that Code shall have effect accordingly. 8. Said provisions contained under Sections 280-A to 280-D of I.T. Act, 1961 are inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.07.2012. Prior to the above said amendment and insertion of Section 280A, the notification dated 01.09.1982 was issued fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. 11. Prior to amendment Act No. 25/2005 the High Court only had jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Subsequent to amendment of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C., appeal against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy is provided (a) to the Court of Sessions, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if sentence is passed by any other Court. The object of the said amendment to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C., is to permit the filing of an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that the contention of the learned counsel may be right as the decision in question is on a trial conducted by the magistrate, but on a close examination of records, it is noticed that the impugned decision is rendered, no doubt, by a magistrate presiding over the Special Court of Economic Offences. It admits of no doubt that in any case of conviction by any court other than a High Court, the State Government may direct an appeal to be filed before the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of sentence. The legislative intent in incorporating it makes the position different. Sub-section (2) provides an appeal to the High Court if the sentence is passed by any other court. This undoubtedly excludes the magistrate as covered under clause (a). 9. The question would be, which are these other courts referred to in clause (b). The Code of Criminal Procedure identifies three categories of courts-court of judicial magistrate, court of metropolitan magistrate and court of sessions. Another category of courts is nomenclatured as Special Courts as may be notified by the State Government. For ascertainment about the origin of Special Courts for Economic Offences, I had directed the registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, the conclusion that the words in clause (b) any other Court brings within its sweep Special Courts even though they may be presided over by the officer of the rank of a Magistrate, in my view, is not proper for the following reasons: Prior to establishment of Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class the trial of offences under the 12 + 2 enactments were within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class. In the preamble of the order No. LAW 106 ICE 79 dated 01.09.1982 it is stated that the Government of India suggested that additional Courts may be established exclusively for dealing with the economic offence in accordance with 47th report of the Law Commission recommending the establishment of special Courts for effective and speedy prosecution of such offences. Therefore, the Special Court came to be established which is presided over by Judicial Magistrate First Class only for the purpose of effective and speedy prosecution of economic offences. If the Special Courts are presided over by Sessions Judge, then the said Special Courts might be said to come under clause (b) - any other Court . As the Special Courts are presided over by the officer of the rank of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1029 has held that in cases where appeal against conviction is filed and appeal against enhancement is also filed, the Bench considering the same is required to dispose of the same simultaneously and together and not separately i.e. not in any other manner. 22. Learned counsel for appellant argued that in an appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of sentence as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. The right of appeal is provided to the accused to challenge the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under sub-section (3) of Section 374 of Cr.P.C. So also sub-section (3) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. provides for the accused to plead for his acquittal or for reduction of sentence. The accused who has been convicted need not wait till the State files an appeal under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. to plead for his acquittal or for reduction of sentence. The accused has a statutory right under sub-section (3) of Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
