BOHRA S A ITO Vs. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana on February 25, 1994, in Criminal Cases Nos. 998 of 1990 to 1003 of 1990 and 5343 of 1990 to 5359 of 1990. Thereby, the learned trial magistrate acquitted respondents -accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for brief).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals move in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm at the relevant time and it obtained a contract from the Gujarat Housing Board (the Board for convenience) some time in 1983 for construction of houses for the Board. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were its partners at the relevant time. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein entrusted the work of constructing houses to three firms by the names of Uma Construction Company, Jitendra Construction Company and Bhagwati Construction Company. They were practically sub -contractors of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein. The latter did not deduct at source the amount of tax from the amount payable to the sub -contractors as required under section 194C of the Act. The default of non -deduction of tax continued for four assessment years from 1985 -86 to 1988 -89. Penalty proceedings under section 201 read with section 221 of the Act were initiated against respondent No. 1 herein for the assessment year 1986 -87. The Income -tax Officer imposed some penalty for such default, but in appeal at the instance of the defaulter the penalty proceedings were quashed. Thereafter, the necessary sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Commissioner of Income -tax and several complaints came to be filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mehsana charging respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein with the offences punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Act. It is needless to say that separate complaints were filed with respect to separate transactions of payment of due amounts to the sub -contractors and for separate assessment years. It appears that in all 23 separate complaints came to be filed. They came to be registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 998 of 1990 to 1003 of 1990 and 5343 of 1990 to 5359 of 1990. The charge against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein as the accused was framed. No accused pleaded guilty to the charge. They were thereupon tried.

(3.) LEARNED standing counsel for the Union of India, Shri Naik, for the appellant, has taken me through the entire evidence on record in support of his submission that the view taken by the learned trial magistrate is erroneous and unsustainable in law and that the learned trial magistrate ought to have come to the conclusion that the guilt against the original accused was established beyond any reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Divetia, has supported the appellant for the purpose of all these appeals. The learned advocate, Shri Puj, for the original accused has, however, submitted that the learned trial magistrate has carefully scanned and scrutinised the evidence on record and has acquitted the original accused of the offences with which they were charged. According to the learned advocate, Shri Puj, for the original accused, the view taken by the learned trial magistrate is a possible view and it calls for no interference by this court in these appeals in view of the well -settled principles of law governing acquittal appeals. The learned advocate, Shri Puj, for the original accused, has further submitted that there was no valid sanction for prosecuting the accused and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial magistrate deserves to be affirmed on this ground alone.