FATEHCHAND MOONAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of all the aforesaid three revisions as the facts of the cases giving rise to these revisions are similar and the parties are also common.

(2.) THE applicant is the "karta" of his Hindu undivided family carrying on business in the name and style "Fatehchand Moonat". During the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the applicant fell into arrears of income-tax to the tune of Rs. 48,739 plus interest. While these arrears were still outstanding the applicant sold away a plot of land measuring 19,000 sq. ft. to one Mahaveer Plastic Industries for a sum of Rs; 45,000 on March 27, 1980. Admittedly, the sale proceeds were not utilised for making the payment of tax. THE income-tax authorities treating the sale as not being made for the "fair market value" started acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After enquiry, the proceedings were however, dropped on July 21, 1986. THE authorities then filed three complaints (vide Criminal Cases Nos. 15 of 1987, 16 of 1987 and 17 of 1987) against the applicant accused on March 23, 1987, under Section 276C of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, alleging that the applicant accused has wilfully attempted to evade payment of income-tax and interest under the Act, due for the aforesaid three assessment years. A separate complaint has been filed for each year. THE learned C. J. M. after recording evidence before charge has on September 15, 1994, framed charges under Sections 276C(2) and 230(1) (sic) read with Section 278C of the Income-tax Act. Feeling aggrieved by the orders framing the charges against him, the applicant has come in revision before this court under Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) THESE revisions must fail. At the outset, it may be observed that this court cannot in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a court of appeal and come to a different conclusion than that of the trial court. The revisional powers though very wide cannot be exercised in such a way as to give a right of appeal in cases excluded expressly by the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a clear defect in procedure or there is manifest error in point of law and consequent miscarriage of justice (see Amar Chand Agarwala v. Shanti Bose, AIR 1973 SC 799).