HASMUKHLAL N VAKILNA Vs. BHAIRAVNATHSINGH ITO SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which is raised by this revision application is whether tender of pardon to an accomplice under sec. 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be granted for the offences not covered by any of the three categories contemplated by that section in cases where during the course of the same transaction some offences which are covered by sec. 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code are committed along with some other offences which are not so covered. The question arises to be considered in the background of the following facts.

(2.) Opponent No. 1 Bhairav Nath Singh is the Income tax officer serving at Surat. He has filed a Criminal complaint against the opponents Nos. 2 3 and 4 as well as the present petitioner in the court of J. M. F. C. at Surat for the offences under secs. 120B 182 193 196 201 380 466 471 109 116 and 511 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that all the accused persons including the present petitioner have conspired to misguide the Income tax authorities and with a view to see that the said authorities arrive at a false decision they have forged certain documents and attempted to use these documents as genuine. The allegation is that with a view to carry out this object the accused persons have committed theft of Government record and have destroyed some original documents and substituted some forged documents in their place.

(3.) It is admitted fact that the complaint was filed against opponents Nos. 2 3 and 4 and the present petitioner as well as one Amara Chand Maganlal Panwala who has expired during the pendency of the complaint before the learned Magistrate. This Amarchand Maganlal was the original accused No. 1 while the opponents Nos. 2 3 and 4 were respectively the original accused Nos. 2 3 and 5. The petitioner is the original accused No. 4. It is said that original accused No. 1 Amar Chand Maganlal who has since died was working as the karta of a joint family of which the opponents Nos. 2 and 3 are the members. The petitioner who is the original accused No. 4 is practising as an Income tax practitioner and was working as the tax adviser of the original accused Nos. 1 2 and 3. The opponent No. 4 is original accused No. 5 who was at the relevant time serving as Talati cum Secretary.