BIJAYANANDA PATNAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, allowing a revision application filed by the opposite party challenging the order of Shri B. Sahu, Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack, in 2CC -203 of 1974, discharging the petitioner under Section 253(1), Cr. PC (old) without framing a charge against him under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for want of sufficient materials. The learned Additional Sessions Judge having allowed the revision before him directed further enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, has come up to this, court against the order of the court below.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may briefly be stated thus: One Shri S.C. De in the capacity of an ITO filed a complaint under Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961, against the petitioner. The case made out in the complaint was that the petitioner had filed a return for the assessment year 1964 -65 corresponding to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1964, on January 10, 1965, showing an income of Rs. 96,001.28 as income from other sources. Against the column 'salaries and house property' in the return the petitioner had shown his income to be 'nil'. This statement made by the petitioner against the column 'salaries and house property' was false, because he had not shown his income from his house property at 3, Aurangjeb Road, New Delhi, and had not mentioned his income as M.L.A. for the period commencing from October 2, 1963, to March 31, 1965, which was Rs. 1,420. This return filed by the petitioner having been signedand verified by him, an offence under Section 277 of the I.T. Act was alleged to have been committed.

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner during trial was that the omission to mention his income from house property and salary as M.L.A. for the period between October 2, 1963, and March 31, 1965, amounting to Rs. 1,420 was an inadvertent mistake; that, on March 27, 1967, when the assessment order was passed, the assessing authority was informed of that omission by Ex. A -1 and that the assessment order was passed on the basis of such information. So, no offence had been committed under Section 277 of the I.T. Act.