VIJAYSINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated January 12, 1999, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (Shri Shreeram Sharma), in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1996.

(2.) A prosecution was launched against the applicant along with the co-accused on the ground that they failed to deposit the amount of tax deducted at source within the period prescribed therefor. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore (Dr. Anil Pare), vide his judgment dated March 12, 1996, passed in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1987, held the accused persons guilty under Section 276b read with Section 278b of the Income-tax Act and each of them was sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The accused persons, then, filed an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge Indore vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal of the co-accused and acquitted them, however, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and confirmed the sentence imposed on him. The appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 1 firm was also dismissed. Hence, this revision has been preferred by the applicant.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has submitted that mens rea is a requisite ingredient of the offence under Section 276b of the Income-tax Act, which is not proved in the present case. Hence, the applicant could not be convicted. This contention of learned Counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. In the light of Deputy CIT v. Modern Motor Works , [1996 ]220 ITR415 (Pandh ) mens rea is not necessary to be present. The offence under Section 276b of the Income-tax Act is complete when the tax deducted at source is not deposited in time.