RATAN CHAND LODHA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under S. 482 r/w S. 397 Cr.PC against the order passed by learned Special Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur, in Cr. Case No. 178/86, ITO vs. Ratan Chand Lodha, which was passed by him on 2nd Dec., 1995. By this order the learned Magistrate ordered that the charges under S. 276(c) and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, be framed against the accused petitioner. The accused had submitted an application under S. 245(2) CrPC which was dismissed by him.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner is a jeweller and a regular income-tax assessee. On or around 29th May, 1979, an inspection was carried out at his premises by the officials of the IT Department and his various books. Statement of accounts, files, loose papers, etc., were seized, for the year 1979-80 showing income of Rs. 16,950. Inquiries were made and a sum of Rs. 1,68,888 was added to the declared income for the period in question. An appeal was filed before the CIT who partly allowed it and ordered for deletion of a sum of Rs. 1,52,388. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed another appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) on 30th March, 1983. A cross-appeal was also filed by the Department but the Tribunal did not feel inclined to interfere with the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 50,500 in the income of the petitioner. The ITO Special Investigation Circle IV, Jaipur, on 29th April, 1985, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioner under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and also granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for offences under S. 276(c) and 277 of the IT Act. The complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate who summoned the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate on 27th Sept., 1986, and statements of two witnesses were recorded. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 29th April, 1985, whereby a penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and on the basis of which impugned complaint was filed, came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 17th Dec., 1987, wherein it was held that imposition of penalty was not sustainable as there was no concealment on the part of the petitioner and that explanation of the petitioner in respect of the items/goods referred to in the slip of papers in question was not found to be false. So the order of penalty was quashed. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate under S. 245(2) CrPC which was dismissed and an order to frame charge was passed.

(3.) THE apex Court in a recent judgment in Krishnan and Anr. vs. Krishnaveni and Anr. JT 1997(1) SC 657, has held that the High Court can invoke revisional jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice and ss. 401 and 482, CrPC provide for the same. In Jesa Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajathan, SB Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 356/95 and 34 other petitions decided on 23rd July, 1996 following Kana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, full Bench decision, reported in 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj) 103, it has been observed that when in a given case the conscience of the Court is shaken, powers given under s. 482 CrPC can be exercised. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rajkapoor & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Administration) & Ors. AIR 1380 SC 258, wherein the apex Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482, CrPC do not repeal when the revisional power under S. 397 overlaps. Thus, this petition is not barred.