DIPESH CHANDAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of Dipesh Chandak for quashing the entire proceedings including the order dated 6/ 7/06/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 157(C) of 2000, whereby the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against accused Dipesh Chandak and for the offence under Section 277 of the said Act against accused Hitesh Chandak, Mahavir Prasad Chandak, Mohan Lal Chandak and N. K. Chitlangia. The complaint case bearing No. 157(C) of 2000 had been filed in the Court of Special Judge Economic Offences, Patna by Union of India through the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Patna against the above five accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

(2.) The assessee accused Dipesh Chandak was a supplier of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar who is accused in different cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for misappropriation of funds of Animal Husbandry Department. The petitioner Dipesh Chandak had made confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna where the cases relating to Animal Husbandry Department were proceeding. In his statement under Section 164 of the Code Dipesh Chandak had admitted his dubious role in misappropriation of funds and fraudulent withdrawals from the State exchequer against fake bills for supply to Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar in connivance with the officials of the said Department. It was noticed that Sri Dipesh Chandak had categorically admitted that during the period from 1987 to 1994 he had prepared fake bills of supply to the Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar in the names of different concerns. He had also admitted in his statement that he had prepared fake bills for purchases and documents of transportation to show that the supplies were genuine. It was found that Returns of income filed by Sri Dipesh Chandak and the documents and statements annexed with the Returns for assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97 in his individual name as well as in the names of his H.U.F. and related concerns were false. In the Returns filed by him, Dipesh Chandak had certified that the contents of the Returns and of annexed documents and statements of accounts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. A show cause notice dated 27-12-1999 had been issued to Dipesh Chandak by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Patna to show cause as to why prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 of the I. T. Act, 1961 should not be initiated against him. The assessee Dipesh Chandak had claimed immunity from prosecution under the Income-tax Act on the ground of assurance of pardon by the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he had not made statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he had made the statement under Section 306 of the Code. On 7-8-1998 the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna recorded the disclosures made by the petitioner which continued up to 12-8-1998. The requirements of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code were complied with and the Special Judge, C.B.I. granted pardon to the petitioner on 28-8-1998. Photo copy of the order dated 7-8-1998 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna is Annexure 2 of the petition. According to Annexure 2 a petition had been filed on behalf of Dipesh Chandak before the Special Judge, C.B.I. to allow him to become an approver in the case by according him pardon in that case. After hearing the parties the learned Special Judge had found it just and proper to record the statement of Dipesh Chandak. It has been mentioned in Annexure 2 that Dipesh Chandak had submitted before the Special Judge that he had been directly concerned with the offences in the case and whole circumstances relating to the offences is within his knowledge and he wanted to become an approver to make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge in relation to the case. He had also submitted before the learned Special Judge that he had made his statement under Section 164 of the Code and on its basis he wants to make full and true disclosure and thus his statement should be recorded for consideration of his prayer for allowing him to be an approver in the case by according him pardon. The learned Special Judge has also mentioned in his order that he finds just and proper that his statement be recorded before passing any order in this regard.