INCOME-TAX OFFICER B WARD Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that the present respondent, Dharshan Singh, had made an application to the ITO, Phagwara, in the statutory Form No. 31 as required by Rule 42 of the I. T. Rules, 1962. That application was made by him for the grant to him of a certificate under Section 230 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). That application was accompanied by an affidavit. In that application, the respondent had stated that he was having one account in his name in Laxmi Commercial Bank Ltd. and three acres of ancestral land and another 8 acres of land which was purchased by him in village Moranwali, District Hoshiarpur. The respondent had stated in the affidavit that he was an agriculturist and had no income which was liable to income-tax under the Act. That application was made on January 4, 1977. On the same date, the respondent made a statement before Mr. M. L. Gupta, Income-tax Inspector, which was in the same terms. On suspicion being raised, enquiry was made and it was found that the respondent owned other properties and was also running a petrol pump. The respondent was confronted with the facts found during the enquiry. He submitted a return of income declaring taxable income in the sum of Rs. 10,720. He also filed a return under the G. T, Act declaring taxable gift of Rs. 5,000 after claiming basic exemption of Rs. 10,000. The ITO, 'b' Ward, Phagwara, therefore, filed a complaint against the respondent for taking action against him under Section 277 of the Act and under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara. He found the respondent guilty of having committed offences under Section 277 of the Act and Section 193, Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months for each of the offences and a fine of Rs. 500 was also imposed upon him for the former offence. Imprisonment in default of payment of fine was also awarded. Both the sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently. It may be mentioned that the learned Magistrate was under the impression that, under Section 277 of the Act, a minimum sentence of six months' R. I. was to be awarded.

(3.) THE respondent filed an appeal which was heard by Mr. S. S. Grewal, Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. He maintained the conviction of the respondent for both the offences but set aside the sentences and ordered him to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Sessions Judge, the complainant has filed this revision petition on the ground that the respondent was more than 18 years of age and could not be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in view of Section 292-A of the Act.