INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SHRI NIWAS OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal appeals Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1985 Income Tax Officer Mandi, and another v. M/s. Shri Niwas Om Parkash and others, Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1985 Income Tax Officer Mandi, and another v. M/s. Shri Niwas Om Parkash and others, Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1985 Income Tax Officer Mandi, and another v. M/s. Shri Niwas Om Parkash and others, arise out of the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu these are being decided by this common judgment as there ill no substantial difference between them 10 far as the accused and basis to file them in this Court are concerned. However, for the facility of reference, broad facts of all of them are useful.

(2.) The matter against the accused pertains to three assessment years, namely, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 and the prosecution is under Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 relating to 1961-62 assessment year and under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 qua 1962.63 and 1963-64 assessment year. The verification of the returns filed by the accused in all these three cases -has been done on 20/10/1961, 15/10/1962, and 30/10/1963.

(3.) Shri Inder Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the order of the trial court is bad and deserves to be set; aside. To support this submission, it is submitted that the Judicial Magistrate should have taken judicial notice of the circumstances with regard to law and order situation prevailing in Northern India at that time and particular reference, in this connection, is made to Delhi, Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. In view of the same, the learned counsel submits, the trial court should have granted an adjournment in this case without insisting for the appearance of appellant No, 2. A reference to a telegram and a letter to the Court, seeking adjournment, has also been made. Besides, it is contended that the conclusion of the trial court that no interest in the prosecution of the case was being shown is not justified because the complaint has been filed by a public servant duly authorised to do so.