9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (11) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 (accounting year 1960-61), respondent No.1 noticed that the firm had not applied for renewal of registration. The firm was, therefore, liable to be assessed as an unregistered firm. At that stage, appellant No. 1, Balwant Singh, represented to respondent No.1 that the firm had filed an application for renewal for the assessment year 1961-62 within the prescribed period, and, therefore, its registration should be renewed. Respondent No.1 adjourned the case to May 27, 1963, and called upon appellant No. 1 to produce evidence to show that such an application was made. On May 27, 1963, appellant No.1 appeard before respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Income-tax Officer of the Additional B-XVIII District, he lodged complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the said certificate of posting and the said duplicate application were forged documens and that they had been used by the appellants in the proceedings before him under section 26A, of the Income-tax Act as genuine knowing them to be forged, that statement on oath of appellant No. 1 was false and that, therefore, the appellants were liable for offences under sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code. The appellants filed an application before the High Court of Punjab(Circuit Bench, New Delhi), under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said complaint. The High Court rejected the application. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such offence is held to have been committed in or in relation to, any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate. Clause (c) provides that no court shall take cognizance of any oftence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, 475 or 476 of the Penal Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such court, etc. Sub-section (2) of section 195 provides that the term " court " in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) includes a civil, revenue or a criminal court, but does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such a witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the court shall at the time of the delivery of the judgment: or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefore and may, if it thinks so fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the court. Sub-section (6) provides tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer is not a court exercising judicial power. In Jagatnnath Prasad's case the question once again arose whether a Sales Tax Officer, under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), was a court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether it was his complaint only which a court can take cognizance of for an offence under section 471 of the Penal Code. The court held that notwithstanding the enlargement of the definition of " court " in section 195 of the Code by the Amendment Act of 1923, the Sales Tax Officer was not a court, that he was merely an instrumentality of the State for purposes of assessment and collection of tax and even if the was required to perform certain quasi-judicial functions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that those proceedings must be treated as proceedings in a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They, therefore, held that the condition precedent prescribed by those provisions had not been complied with as a complaint in that case was not filed by the Income-tax Officer. The court also observed that though the said proceedings are to be treated as proceedings in a court, the Income-tax Officer was not a revenue court. That being the position, the proceedings under section 26A before respondent No. 1 must be treated as proceedings in a court for the purposes of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income-tax Officer, however, cannot be treated as a revenue court. Though, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
