RAMA GOURI DEVI Vs. HARISH CHANDRA CHATURDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act against the defendant opposite party. THE allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant opposite party had a monthly income of over Rs. 25,000. THE defendant alleged that his monthly income did not exceed Rs. 300. An application was filed on January 4, 1972, praying for issue of summons on the Income-tax Officer, Ward-A, Jamshedpur, requiring him to produce certain documents as mentioned in the application. This application has been rejected by the learned subordinate judge on the ground that in view of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, he could not direct the production of those documents. THE civil revision application is directed against that order.

(2.) SECTION 137 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act"), prohibited disclosure of information mentioned in that section. Certain exceptions were also engrafted. I may mention only one of them incorporated in sub-section (3)(i). As a result of this sub-section, disclosure could be made for the purpose of prosecution in any offence under the Indian Penal Code in respect of matters mentioned there in SECTION 32 of the Finance Act, 1964 (5 of 1964), repealed SECTION 137. SECTION 138 was also substituted by SECTION 33 of the Act 5 of 1964. The result of the change brought about by Act 5 of 1964 in the Income-tax Act, 1961, is that SECTION 137 of the Act is no longer on the statute book. Consequently, therefore, there cannot be any impediment in the way of the court in directing production of documents, which were filed before the income-tax authorities after the repeal which impediment was there when SECTION 137 of the Act was not repealed. I, therefore, do not think that the court below was right in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to order production of documents. Learned counsel for the opposite party pointed out that SECTION 138 as amended by Act 5 of 1964 has been further amended and substituted by Act 20 of 1967. On the basis of this amended provision, it was suggested that there is a prohibition, although not explicit but by necessary implication, so far as calling for production of documents by the court is concerned. Reliance was placed on SECTION 138(1)(b) of the Act. I do not find any prohibition explicit or implicit in that provision. The provision only enables the Commissioner to give copies of certain documents, provided the grant of it is in public interest. The sub-clause does not apply where a party wants the document for furtherance of private interest. Moreover, the mere fact that, in certain circumstances, the commissioner may grant copies of certain documents, cannot affect the jurisdiction of the court so far as its powers in respect of production of documents under the Civil Procedure Code are concerned. I may also point out that, if the interpretation put by the learned counsel on SECTION 138(2) is accepted, the position now will be that even in respect of prosecution under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the court will not be in a position to obtain relevant documents. This clearly could not be the intention of the legislature. I am thus of the view that the court below refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law under the erroneous view that it had no such jurisdiction.