UNION OF INDIA Vs. J K PARLESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Union of Indian represented by the ITO, Central I Circle, Madras, to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused in C. C. No. 3491/73, on the filed of th Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmors, Madras. the learned Magistrate found accused 1 to 3 guilty under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal code as well as under s. 193 of the India Penals Code. He also found that second accursed guilty of the three counts of charges under s. 277 of the I. T. Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The learned Magistrate, without convicting the third accursed under s. 277 of the Income-tax Act, nevertheless sentenced her to imprisonment till e rising of e court on three courts of charges framed under s. 277 of the I. T. Act. In respect f the offences punishable under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the IPC, the first accused wa s sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, the second accused, Ugamaraj Jain, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six moths and e third accused, Smt. Taramani Bhandari, to pay a fine of Rs., 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three months. In respect of the offences punishable imprisonment for three months. In respect of the offence punishable under s. 193 of the IPC, the first accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, the second accused, Ugamaraj Jain, was sentenced to pay a find of Rs. 1,000 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and e third accused, Smt. Taramani Bhandari, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three moths. the appellant contends that e sentences awarded by the lower court are contrary to law and not commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed by e responden t and the reasons given by the lower court for not awarding even the minimum sentence prescribed under s,. 277 of the I. t,. ACt are not in accordance with law.

(2.) THE facts of the case maybe briefly notice before considering the question whether the sentence should be enhanced, M/s. J. K. Parlesha and Co. whcih is the first accursed in this case, is a partnership firm carrying on business in lending money on the security of motor vehicles, authorickshaws, etc., on hire-purchases basis. THE second and thirds accused are the partners of the firms. THEy are income-tax assessee. ON may 20, 1966, he ITO, Cite Circle VI Madras (P. W. 1) received Ex. P-1 dated May 10, 1966, from S. Bhandari and Co. Chartered Accountants at Madras, on behalf of first accused-firm, with a duplicate copy of the partnership deed (Ex. P-2) and an application for registration in Form No. 11 (Ex. P-3) singed by the second and thirds accused. P. W. 2, Thireu R. Ponnappa Pillari, was the ITO, CITy Circle VI, Madras, from June, 6, 1966, to May 5, 1968. He received on February 17, 1967, a statement in Form No. 22 ( advance tax estate) form the second accused. This statement has been marked as Rs. P-4. In Ex. P-4 the income from the firm toward the share of the second accursed for the assessment year 1967-68 was shown as Rs. 10,000 on JUly 7, 1967. P. W. 1, Pnnappa Pillari, received the return, . 5 from the second accused for the assessment year 1967-68, wherein the share of e income of the 2nd accused from the profits of the firm was shown as Rs. 10,000. the verification has been signed by the second accused.

(3.) THE learned Magist5ate has given dose special reason for not sentencing the second accused to the minimum terms of imprisonment contemplated under the provisos to s. 277 of the I. t. ACt. THE offences were committed by the second accused ten yeas prior to the date of the judgment of the trial court and this fact was taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate. THE judgment was delivered on June 15, 1976. since then four more years have passed by and the second accused, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, has sufficient the agony of the anticipatory fall of the knife on his neck at any time, metaphorically. A penalty also has been imposed by the Department on the accused for the offences committed by them in addition to the fire imposed by the trial court. It is not disputed that thre offences, for the commissioner of whcih these accused have been charge-sheeted in this case, viz. C. C. NO. 3492 of 1973, and the connected case, C. c. No. 3491 of 1973, they have gone straight and have not repeated the performance. Once other facts that may be taken into consideration in favour of the second accused is the admitted fact that the books of account in English were written by a part-time employee. THEre is nothings on record to shown that either the second accused or the thread accused can either read or write or even understand English. there is no direct evidence to prove that the second accused gave instruction to the aforesaid part-time employees to make false entries. the possibility of an over-zealous employees trying to benefits his master by trying to diminish an accounts of the income whcih has to be submitted to the I. T. Depart, or alternatively, making false entries to incriminate and blackmail the finaciesr cannot also be discounted. This is a possibility note probability, in the instinct case, THEre fore, is a possibility, not a probability, in the instinct case, /THErefore I am satisfied that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for not imposing the sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under s. 277 of the I. T. Act are adequate and that the sentences of imprisonment till the rising of the court for the offence under s. 277 of the I. T. Act need not be interfered with, However, I am of the opinion that sentence of Rs. 1,000 only awarded to the second accused for the offices under s. 193 IPC, is not sufficient and, therefore, I enhance the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 of Rs. 2,000 Viz, by an additional sum of Rs. 1,000 and maintain the default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Similarly, the sentence of fine of rs. 500 awarded to the third accused for the offence publishable under s. 193, IPC, is enhanced to Rs. 1,000 namely, by a fine of Rs. 500 in addition to the fine already impo sed. In default of payment of the firms of Rs. 1,000 in all, the third accused will suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Time for payment of the fines imposed, two months, No,. enhancement of the sentence awarded to A-1 is called for, because A-2 and A-3 are the partners who constitute the A-1 firm. THE appeal is accordingly allowed.