INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. CITY DRY FISH COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No 209 of 1988 has been filed by the Income-tax Department against the judgment of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, in CRIMINAL Case No. 8 of 1982 for enhancement of sentence. The Transferred CRIMINAL Appeal No 1636 of 1989 is filed by A-2 against his conviction and sentence in CRIMINAL Case No. 8 of the 1982. Therefore, both the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, acquitted A-1 of all the charges framed against it. He convicted A-2 for the offences under section 276C and 277 read with section 278 of the Income-tax Act and setenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 under each count and also imprisonment till the rising of the court; in default of fine, simple imprisonment for a term of six months. A-3 was convicted for the offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under each count and also imprisonment till the rising of the court; in default of fine, simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal for enhancement of the sentence has been filed by the Income-tax Department, whereas A-2 filed an appeal in the lower appellate court challenging the conviction. That was transferred to this court and numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1988. Both the appeals are heard together.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant (a-2_ in Tr. Cr. A. P. No. 1637 of 1989 contends that there is no legal evidence to base a conviction, that the alleged documents, i.e., return of income filed by A-1 firm for the assessment year 1977-78, profit and loss account and computation of income statement signed by A-2, ledger of A-1 firm for the assessment year 1977-78, statement recorded from A-3 by the then inspectors, the late G. Krishna Rao and J. Chakravarthi, report of the inspectors submitted to the late S. V. K. Appaji Rao, the then Income-tax Officer, E-Ward, on September 11, 1980, secret books seized during the survey and other documents, are not property proved and that, therefore, the conviction of A-2 cannot be based on the above evidence. LEARNED Special Public Prosecutor of income-tax cases contended that the above documents are all public documents and they are properly proved by the prosecution witence of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused. There are no grounds in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.