MADHAVLAL MANISHANKER TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also dispose of criminal revision No. 192 of 1957, a reference made by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for enhancing the sentence.

(2.) On 29-4-1954, the Special Police Establishment, Jabalpur, filed a complaint under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant (accused) in the Court of the Special Magistrate, Jabalpur. The charge against him was that as he was not eligible to practise as an Income-tax Practitioner under Section 61(2) (iv) of the Income-tax Act, he, in order to bolster up his false claim to practise under the said section, fraudulently used as genuine two forged certificates (Exhibits P-4 and and P-7) which he knew to be forged. The said certificates purported to bear the signatures of Shri P. D. Pradhan, Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, certifying that the applicant 'used to appear for assessees of income-tax in the Bhopal State in the year 1947-48 as an authorized representative' and that 'he knew him as an Income-tax Practitioner of Bhopal', The trial Court convicted him in respect of the two certificates on two counts under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on each count. On appeal, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, maintained both the convictions. As regards the sentence, he was of opinion that the user of the two forged certificates was only for the purpose of establishing his eligibility as an Income-tax Practitioner and consequently their production at different stages could be treated as one transaction and made the subject of a single charge entailing one sentence only under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code; but as there was also an application of the State Government for enhancing the sentence, on which he was making a reference to this Court, he left the question of passing a proper sentence to this Court. The reference was on the ground that the conviction was under Section 471, read with Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code which made the sentence of imprisonment obligatory, and even otherwise the case called for a more deterrent sentence.

(3.) The facts of the case may now briefly be stated. The applicant claims to be an Income-tax and Sales Tax Practitioner at Jabalpur. On 20-7-1951, Shri Rawal (P. W. 10), Income-tax Officer, Jabalpur, by a general notice (Ex. P-1), called upon all the Income-tax Practitioners to furnish information in the prescribed form to his office of their eligibility to practise as Income-tax Practitioners under Section 61 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for being communicated to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal and Nagpur. On 24-1-1952, the applicant furnished the information on the required form (Ex. P. 2). Not being satisfied with his eligibility, he was informed that if he did not produce evidence in support of his entry in column 2 of Ex. P2, (e. g., that he was qualified under Section 61(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act as amended uptodate), his name would be removed from the list of Income-tax Practitioners. In reply, on 13-5-1952, he filed a certificate from the Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, (Ex. P-4), with a covering letter (Ex. P-3). As this certificate (Ex. P-1) was undated, the applicant was asked, vide Ex. P-5, to inform the Income-tax Officer 'when it was signed' and 'to file it after getting date written by the signatory'. On 24-5-1952. the applicant wrote to say (vide Ex. P-6) that he had dot two original certificates from the Income-tax Officer, Bhopal, on 14-4-1949, of which one was undated through oversight of the signatory and the typist. He sent both of them to the Income-tax Officer with a request to get them verified and to register his name. The fresh certificate bearing date 12-4-1949, which he then filed, is Ex. P-7. Shri Rawal (P. W. 10) sent thc.se certificates to Shri Pradhan for verification. By his letters, dated 96-1952, (Exhibits P-21 and P-22), Shri Pradhan denied his signatures on both these documents and also stated that he did not remember whether the applicant appeared before him in the pre-merger days of the Bhopal State as an Income-tax Practitioner. Enquiries were, therefore, instituted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and on his instruction Shri Rawal (P. W. 10) asked the applicant to furnish a list of cases in which he had appeared before the Income-tax Officer, Bhopal. The applicant furnished a list (Ex. P-9), as required, but it was found that the order- sheets of the cases mentioned by him did not record the fact that the applicant had appeared for the assessees as claimed by him. On these facts, the applicant was charged with an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted as stated earlier.