DALJEET SINGH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application aims at setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1979, only partly allowing the applicants' appeal, though maintaining their convictions under Sections 193 and 467, Indian Penal Code, reducing the sentence till the raising of the court on each count but enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 failing the payment of which rigorous imprisonment for two years, instead of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count with a direction for the substantive sentences to run concurrently and in the event of non-payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THERE is a firm called " M/s. Satya Trading Corporation" of which, among others, the applicants are partners. This firm for the year 1972-73 submitted its balance-sheet showing that the co-accused Sureshchandra Sakorikar (since acquitted), was its (firm's) creditor in a sum of Rs. 17,000. Mr. Nazirsingh (P. W. 1), the ITO, with regard to this item of Rs. 17,000, conducted an inquiry during the course of which the pronotes (Exts. P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12) purporting to be executed on July 3, 1972, July 10, 1972, July 13, 1972 (with overwriting) and June 12, 1974, for Rs. 2,000, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 17,000, respectively, all bearing similar revenue stamps with the exception of one, by the applicant, Daljeet Singh, and attested by the applicant, Rasjeet Singh, showing the said Sureshchandra Sakorikar as the lender of those sums to the firm, were produced before him. These applicants, among others, verified the returns to be true. These pronotes were sent to the stamp expert, Indian Security Press, Nasik, who found that the revenue stamps affixed on Exts. P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12 were first printed on March 19, 1975, with the exception of one 10 P. stamp on the pronote, Ex. P-12, which was first printed on July 25, 1974.

(3.) THE contention by the learned counsel for the applicants is that if their defence and explanation are given weight, they could not have been convicted of the two offences and punished for them.