BABITA LILA & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 31-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 604 
BABITA LILA & ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 824of2016) 
AUGUST 31, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3: 
s.195 - Complaint by Deputy Director of IT against 
appellants-assessee for making false statements during search 
operations - Maintainability of - Trial court held that sufficient 
ground was made out against appellants to proceed under !PC -
Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that as search 
operations were undertaken by the LT. Os of Nashik and Dhule, the 
complaint could not have been lodged by the Deputy Director of IT, 
Bhopal who was not the appellate authority in terms of s.195(4) -
High Court declined to quash complaint - Held: Under IT Act, the 
Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is designated to be the appellate 
forum from the orders as enumerated u/s.246(1) of the Act - Neither, 
by the hierarchy of the income tax authorities as listed in s.116 of 
the Act nor in the notification issued u/s.118, the Deputy Director 
of Income Tax is considered to be an appellate forum to which 
appeals from the orders/decisions of the I. T. Os./assessing officers 
would ordinarily lie within the meaning of s.195(4) of the Code -
The statute does not suffer from casus omissus so as to recognise 
the Deputy Director of IT as an appellate forum - Deputy Director 
of IT Bhopal, therefore, cannot be construed to be an authority to 
whom appeal would ordinarily lie from the decisions/orders of the 
I. T. Os involved in the search proceedings so as to empower him to 
lodge the complaint in view of the restrictive preconditions imposed 
by s.195 - Doctrines/Principles - Doctrine of casus omissus. 
s.195 - Complaint by Deputy Director of IT, Bhopal against 
appellant-assessee for making false statements during search 
operations - Appellants husband and wife resident of Bhopal and 
Aurangabad - Search operation conducted by authorities under 
the IT Act at Bhopal and Aurangabad - Search at Aurangabad 
604 
BABITA LILA & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA 
conducted by ITO, Nashik and ITO, Dhule - Appellants allegedly 
made false statements denying of having any locker in their names 
-
Trial court held that sufficient ground was made out against . 
appellants to proceed under !PC - Issuance of summons - Quashing 
of complaint sought on the ground that since no part of the alleged 
offence was committed within territorial limits of Bhopal Court, it 
had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint - High Court declined 
to interfere - Held: Appellants as assessees, had residences both at 
Bhopal and Aurangabad and had been submitting their income tax 
returns at Bhopal - The search operations were conducted 
simultaneously both at Bhopal and Aurangabad in course whereof 
allegedly the appellants, in spite of queries made, did not disclose 
that they in fact did hold a locker located at Aurangabad - They in 
fact denied to hold any locker, either individually or jointly - The 
search conducted simultaneously at Bhopal and Aurangabad has 
to be construed as a single composite expedition with a common 
mission - Having regard to the overall facts and the accusation of 
false statement made about the existence of the locker in such a 
ioint operation, it cannot be deduced that in the peculiar facts and 
circumstances, no part of the offence alleged had been committed 
within the jurisdictional limits of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
Bhopal - Income Tax Act, 1961 - ss.116, 118, 177 to 179 - Penal 
Code, 1860 - ss.191, 193, 200. 
s.195(4) - 'ordinarily' - Connotation of 
Words and phrases: 'ordinary' - Meaning of 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
605 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HELD: 1. Section 195(l)(b) of the Code prohibits taking 
F 
of cognizance by a court vis-a-vis the offences mentioned in the 
three clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) except on a com plaint in writing of 
the Court when the offence(s) is/are alleged to have been 
committed in or in relation to any proceeding before it or in 
respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such a 
0 
proceeding or by such officer of that court as it may authorise in . 
writing or by some other court to which the court (in the 
proceedings before whi.ch the offence(s) has been committed) is 
subordinate. Sub-section (3) of Section 195 clarifies that the term 
"Court" would mean a Civil, Revenue or Criminal court and would 
H 
606 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.