RADHESHYAM RENWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused-applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr. PC. The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment dt. 22nd May, 1999 passed by Third Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, in Crl, Appeal No. 36 of 1993 whereby he maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 276c and Section 277 of the IT Act sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months and fine of Rs. 2,500 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month on each count passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, in Crl. Case No. 88 of 1990 decided on 25th Feb. , 1993 with a modification of the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) UNION of India, through ITO, Ward No. 2, Gwalior, filed a complaint against the applicant-accused Radheshyam Renwal for offences punishable under Sections 276c and 277 of the IT Act, 1961. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused was a partner in the firm M/s Narsinghdas Renwal, Sarafa, Lashkar; that a raid was conducted by the Central Excise authorities on the residential premises of the accused on 4th Feb. , 1981; that gold ornaments valued at Rs. 1,70,400, silver valued at Rs. 42,552 and cash amount of Rs. 42,000 was found there during the said raid conducted by the Central Excise Department; that cash amount of Rs. 42,000 was then taken in possession in compliance of the authorisation issued by the GIT, Bhopal, under Section 132a of the IT Act, from the Central Excise authorities; that the accused filed IT return for asst. yr. 1981-82 showing income of Rs. 8,715 on 31st July, 1981; that the return was signed by the accused; that the then ITO, D-Ward, Gwalior, assessed the total income of the accused at Rs. 1,53,320 on 22nd Sept. , 1984 under Section 143 (3)/144b of the IT Act, 1961; that the accused filed appeal before the CIT (A), Bhopal, against the order of the learned ITO, D-Ward, Gwalior; that the CIT (A), Bhopal, reduced the income of the accused to Rs. 47,315 vide his order dt. 13th Dec. , 1984; that the IT Department filed appeal before the Tribunal, New Delhi, against the order of the learned CIT (A), Bhopal; that the learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of IT Department confirming the income of the accused at Rs. 47,315 vide order dt. 6th Oct. , 1986; that the penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act by issuing a show-cause notice to the accused on 13th Oct. , 1986; that considering the case of accused the ITO, D-Ward, Gwalior, levied a penalty of Rs. 3,720 under Section 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act vide his order dt. 27th March, 1987; that the accused filed an appeal before the CIT (A), Bhopal, against the above penalty order of the learned ITO; that the learned CIT (A), Bhopal, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the penalty order passed by the above ITO; that from the above facts it was clear that the accused Radheshyam Renwal had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus, he committed offences punishable under Sections 276c and 277 of the IT Act; that the CIT, Bhopal, having lawful jurisdiction after considering the relevant facts and circumstances had authorised the complainant under Section 279 of the IT Act to file the said complaint. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused be tried and accordingly punished.

(3.) THE defence of the accused before the learned Trial Court was that ladies of the family had taken out the silver in question from family's olden clothes by indigenous process and the total worth of the same was Rs. 3,000, the same being 30 per cent pure only. He, therefore, pleaded that the allegations in the complaint were ill founded. The case went to trial. Prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its case. Defence could not examine any witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the applicant, as stated above. He went in appeal. He did not get substantial success therein and with minor modification, as seen above, the appeal was disposed of. Hence this revision.