INCOME-TAX OFFICER MADRAS Vs. P RAMARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras, to revise the order of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, overruling his objections and directing him to produce the documents summoned by the court. The documents were summoned at the instance of the accused in the case who actually produced them. The accused are prosecuted for offences of criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy etc. They were employees under Dinathanthi and their case is that on account of their producing the documents and giving information to the Income-tax authorities the present criminal case has been filed against them. Thus the accused in the case rely on the documents to prove the motive for the prosecution being launched against them.

(2.) SECTION 137 of the Income-tax Act 1961, as it stood would have been an obstacle in the way of the court issuing summons for the production of the documents. But the said section has been omitted under the finance Act of 1964, which has however amended S. 138. The learned advocate for the petitioner however relied on S. 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, in support of his contention that as the documents were produced before 1-4-1964, his right and privilege not to produce the documents by virtue of S. 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 before amendment by the Finance Act of 1964, would not be affected by virtue of the repeal of S. 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 1964.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the said contention, it is necessary to consider whether even S. 137 of the Income-tax Act 1961, as it originally stood, would enable the petitioner to refuse to produce the documents. The learned advocate for the petitioner mistakenly stated at the commencement that the documents were required for the purpose of prosecution, but if it were so, the case could have been disposed of on the short ground that S. 137 (3) (i) would apply and the Court was entitled to summon the documents. But the learned advocate for the respondents-accused brought to my notice that the documents were not required for the prosecution, but, as stated already, required only to prove the motive put forward by the defence as to why the prosecution was launched against them. There is, therefore, no scope for invoking the exception in S. 137 (3) (i) of the income-tax Act, 1961 as it then stood. (3a) The learned advocate for the respondents relied on S. 137, clause (5) of the income-tax Act, 1961, prior to the repeal. Clause (5) of S. 137 runs as follows: