RAMSWAROOP BRAHMIN Vs. STATE (THROUGH C.B.I.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Special Judge (for C.B.I. cases) Jaipur whereby Ramswrup (appellant) has been convicted for the offences of Sections 120-B, 468, 471, 420/511, Penal Code & 5(1) (d) r. w. Sec. 5(3) (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment & to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 (in default, one months S.I.) under each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Facts:

(2.) The respondent filed a charge sheet against Ramswarup Sharma who was Record keeper, Special Survey Circle III, Income Tax Department, Jaipur with the avernments that, Ramswarup-(Sharma appellant) & Dhanraj Dugger made a criminal conspiracy on or after June 1, 1979 to cheat Income Tax Department for evasion of tax & penalty thereby Dhanraj Dugger manoeuvred filing of wealth tax returns for assessment year 1978-79 in back date on his and his father (Chandanmal)s behalf with connivance of the appellant who dishonestly by abuse of his official position made an anti-dated entry at S. No. 766 dated 8.6.78 in the records of Special Survey Circle, Income Tax Department, Jaipur showing receipt of wealth tax return for assessment year 1978-79 of Dharaj Dugger and, therefore, altered entry No. 1540 dated 30.6 78 pertaining to the receipt of Income Tax return of one, Kumari Rashmi Bansal, and also made manipulations in the respective returns. Taking the aid of such insertions with regard to filing of ante-dated wealth tax returns, Dhanraj Duggar submitted his reply on 24.7.79 on his and his fatherss behalf (Karta of HUE concern-M/s Khelsidar Sadasukha Dugger, Jaipur, to notices dated 8.6.79 issued under Rule 112A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 read with Sec. 132(5) of the Income-tax Act.

(3.) After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellant & Dhanraj who expired during trial. The trial continued against the appellant. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences, indicated above in first para of this judgment.