B. GOPI Vs. G. THIYAGARAJAN, INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision case is filed to set aside the order dated November 22, 2006, passed in C A. No. 39 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, in confirming the order dated February 19, 2004, passed in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam, in convicting the petitioner under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000 each; in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for one month each. The petitioner is an accused and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam. The complainant has filed a petition before the learned magistrate stating that in the income-tax returns filed by the accused for the years 1996 and 1997 on May 16, 1997, the accused has submitted a false information and claimed exemption under the head of interest on house building advance, thereby committed offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, after getting proper sanction from the authority concerned, the respondent has filed the said petition and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 109 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam, as stated above. After contest, the learned magistrate by judgment dated February 19, 2004, convicted the accused under sections 276C and 277 of Income-tax Act and sentenced him accordingly. Aggrieved over the same, the accused has filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, in C.A. No. 39 of 2004 and by a judgment dated November 22, 2006, the said conviction and sentence of the trial court were confirmed. Hence, the present revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an income-tax assessee and he was working in M/s. Chemplast P. Ltd. as an officer. He would further submit that at the time of filing the income-tax returns, he has received house building advance. Hence, he claimed exemption under the head of "interest on house building advance" and, subsequently, it was rejected and he has also claimed to refund the interest amount. Without taking note of the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case has been lodged against him without getting proper approval. It is also submitted that the respondent always used to take steps only against the salaried people just like the petitioner and leaving the big personalities who are getting income in crores. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray to allow the present revision.

(3.) Learned special public prosecutor; appearing for the respondent, would submit that after getting proper sanction from the concerned authority, a case has been foisted against him on the basis of the wrong information furnished by the petitioner and the same has been mentioned in the first paragraph of the complaint itself. The learned special public prosecutor would further submit that in the eye of law, all are equal and no privilege will be shown to anyone. Hence, according to the learned special public prosecutor, the present revision has to be dismissed.