LexDIPESH CHANDAK versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DIPESH CHANDAK v. UNION OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 [S.N. VARIAVA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sec.306(2), 308-Grant of Pardon- Under Income Tax Act for offence of misappropriation of funds-Held, not applicable to offences under Income Tax Act for filing false return. The Appellant an accused in a number of cases pertaining to the Fodder Scam in the Animal Husbandry Department of Bihar, was accused of misappropriation of the funds and of fraudulent withdra~als from the State Exchequer by issuing fake bills for supplies. A B c He was granted a pardon by the Special Judge, CBI, on condition D that he makes a full and complete disclosure. On the basis of the statement made by him, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Patna issued a show-cause-notice as to why prosecution should not be initiated against him, under the Income Tax Act, for having filed false returns of income tax. The Appellant replied stating that he has been granted a pardon under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner E of Income Tax, who opined that the pardon was restricted only to offences under the Indian Penal Code and registered a Complaint Case under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act The Court of Economic F Offences, Patna, took congnizance and issued summons. Appellant's petition for quashing this complaint was dismissed, on the ground that as yet the terms of the pardon have been fulfilled. It was held that till full evidence is given by the Appellant and the trial of all cases is concluded he continues to be an accused and, therefore, cannot claim immunity from prosecution. G Before this Court the Appellant contended that he has been granted pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that under Section 306(2) Criminal Procedure Code the pardon is, amongst others, H 493 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A in respect of any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more, that such a pardon would operate not just for offences under the Indian Penal Code but would also cover offences under other statutes, that for an offence under Sections 277 and 278 the sentence may extend to seven years, that by virtue of the pardon no B c D E F G H prosecution could have been launched against the Appellant under these Sections, that the High Court was not right in stating th:tt as yet the Appellant was accused, that the pardon would continue to operate unless and until it has been revoked under Section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the pardon must necessarily mean that nc prosecution can be based in respect of the same offence, and that the offences for which the Appellant was being tried were the same in respect of which he was being sought to be prosecuted under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. Respondents contended that prosecutions in respect of which pardon was granted were for misappropriation of funds of the Animal Husbandry Department by raising fake bills in respect of supplies never made to the Animal ~usbandry Department, and that the prosecution had nothing to do with the filing of false returns and making a false statement in the Income Tax Returns. Disposing of the Appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The pardon has been granted for the offence of misappropriation of funds. This offence has nothing to do with filing of false returns by the Appellant. The prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 of the Act of 1961 is in respect of filing false return and making of false declaration. The pardon which has been granted would not cover those offences. (499-G, H; 500-A] 2. To get benefit of the pardon the Appellant has to make a full and frank disclosure regarding the offences of misappropriation. Ifhe does not make a full and complete disclosure, the pardon may be cancelled. If he makes a full and complete disclosure he faces the prosp.ect of being convicted in the prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. Article 20(2) of the Constitution enjoins that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. To continue with the prosecution would thus amount to forcing the Appellant ,to give evidence against I DIPESH CHANDAK v. U.O.I. [VARIAVA, J.] 495 himself or to risk pardon being cancelled as he cannot make a full and A complete disclosure for fear of being convicted in the other case. Thus, even
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.