LAWS(ALL)-1981-12-62

RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Decided On December 18, 1981
RAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 'B' WARD AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been moved by the three applicants, namely, Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, under Section 482, Cr. PC, praying that the Criminal Case No. 2430 of 1980. (State through Sri B.K. Srivastava, Income-tax Officer, 'B' Ward, Varanasi v. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal), pending in the court of the Chief judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, may be quashed.

(2.) A number of grounds were taken but during the arguments, I have been addressed only on one point which concerns applicants Nos, 2 and 3. Admittedly, there was a discrepancy of Rs. 18,003 in the original return for the assessment year 1973-74 submitted on 30th July, 1973, and the revised statement of return submitted much later on September 5, 1975. Prima facie, a wrong statement was submitted earlier and it was submitted that this was due to a bona fide mistake in calculation. Whether the account was delivered knowing or believing it to be false or not believing it to be true as to attract one of the ingredients of Section 277, I.T. Act, is a question of fact which could be heard and disposed of in the light of evidence and rightly so, for that reason, I have not been addressed on that point. What the law requires is that the complaint should prima facie disclose the offence and I have been addressed from that aspect and it is submitted that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence by the accused persons, Ayodhya Prasad and Ram Autar, applicants Nos, 2 and 3.

(3.) I may also mention that so far as the provisions of the I.T. Act are concerned the prosecution under Section 278 as well as under some other sections requires the sanction of the Commissioner under Section 279 of the Act. In the present case the sanction is annexed. It relates to an offence under Section 277 of the I.T. Act only and there is no sanction for the prosecution under Section 278 of the Act. The order of the Magistrate summoning applicants Nos. 2 and 3, therefore, cannot be sustained.