A K PANDURANGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein has been convicted under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one vear.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein filed Ex. P. 1 before the Income-tax Officer and induced him, on the strength of Ex. P. 1 to issue an income-tax clearance certificate dated 30-12-1967. The said certificate is marked as Ex. P-2. But for the suppression of the fact that the appellant had any contract business at all, P. W. 1 would not have issued the certificate. Hence, the prose-cution has filed the charge sheet under Section 420 IPC P. W. 1 who issued the Income-tax Clearance certificate has categorically stated in the box as follows:

(3.) THE appellant who has been convicted has preferred this appeal. Mr. Panchapakesan, the learned Counsel for the appellant no doubt tried to argue that an offence under Section 420 I. P. C- is not made out in this case. From the evidence given by P. W. 1 which I have extracted above, and also from the documents Ex. P. . and P. 2 it is clear that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 420 I. P. C Mr. Panchapakesan the learned Counsel for the appellant Put forth an argument to the effect that the complaint itself is not maintainable since the procedure prescribed under Section 195 (1) (b) Crl. P. C was not followed. The lower court has mentioned in its judgment that the proceedings before P. W. 1 cannot bp construed as iudi-cial proceedings. This, I am of the view, is completely wrong since Section 136 of the Income-tax Act clearly states Any proceeding under this Act before an Income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a iudicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and tor the purposes of Section 196 I. P. C (XLV of 1860 ). Thus, it is clear that the filing of an affidavit by the appellant herein for the purpose of getting income-tax clearance certificate before P. W. 1 can be clearlv taken as proceedings coming under Section 136 of the Income-tax Act.