LexISHWARLAL GIRDHARLAL PAREKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ISHWARLAL GIRDHARLAL PAREKH v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. May l, 1968 [V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, s. 30 a11d s. 420-Cat!sing i11con1~-tax Officer to 111ake under assessn1ent of inco1ne by nu<;representatton lVhether 'cheatin1/-Assess1nent order whether 'property'-Conununication of Such ordel" to assess lvhether 'delivery' of property-Assess111ent orller whether \·aluable security' as defined in .\'. 30 /.P.C. The appellant along with ce1rtain others· \Vas tried for the offence of c.-n.tcring into a conspiracy to cheat the incon1e-tax authorities in respect of the incon1e-tax assessment of a firn1. The prosecution levelled against him a charge. inter alia, of the offence, under s. 420 I.P.C. The appel~ lant raised before the Special Judge an objection to the effect that the terms of s. 420 1.P.C. were not satisfied inasmuch as. (i) an assessment order was not 'property', (ii) its communication to him was not 'delivery', (iii) an assessment order was also not a 'valuable security'. The Spe- cial Judge and the High Court rejected these contentions. The appellant camci to this Court by special leave. HELD : (i) Even if an assessment order is not 'property' in the "llands of the Incon1e-tax Officer, it is 'property' in the hands of the -assessee because it con.tains a computation of his assessable incomei and a deter- mination of his tax liabilitY~ The \vord property occur~ing in s. 420 I.P.C. does not necessarily mean that the thing, of which a delivery is dishonestly desired by the· person who cheats, must have a money value or a market value in the hands of the person cheated. [196 G-197 A] (ii) C·vmmunication or service of an assessment order is part of the procedure itself. But if the necessary allegations are established, the accused must be held to have dishonestly induced the Income-tax Officer to 'deliver' the, particular property viz. the assessment order. Nor could the contention be accepted that the deception, if at all. is practised not \Vhen the assessment order· is delivered, hut at the stage when the con1- putation of the total income is made bv Jncome-tax Officer, for. the pro- cess of 'cheating' employed by an assessee. if successfrd, would have the result of dis-honestlv inducing: the Income-tax Officer to maR:e a wrong assessment order and communicate the same to an assessee. [197 C-DJ (iii) An order of assessment is a 'valuable security' under s. 420 T.P.C. because it creak~s a right in the assessee in the sense that he has a right to pay tax only on the total amount assessed therein and his liability to pav tax is also restric'cd to that extent. f197 F--:--Gl On the abo\·c reasoning, framing of a charge for an offence under s. 420 I .P .C. is correct. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JLiRTSD!CTIOJ\' : Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 24, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revi- sion Application No. 232 of 1965. I 94 SUPRHlE COURT REPORTS ( 1969] J S.C.R. A. S. R. •Chari, N. C. Maniar P. C. Bhartari and J B Dada- A clumji, for the appellant. ' · · G. L. Sanghi and S. I'. Nayyar, for respondent No. 1. N. C. Maniar, K. L. llatlzi and Atiqur Rehman for respon- . uen1 .\io. 2. ' The J ud.~ment of the Court was delivered hy Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, on hehalf .of the appellant, the fifth accused in Special Case No. 9 of 1963, Jn the Cou!"t of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay, Mr. A. S. R. Chan, learned counsel. challenges the order. dated ~ovembcr 24 .•. I 965. passed by the High Court of Bombay, in ·( rurnnal Rev1s1on Application No. 232 of I 965. There are five accused, in Special Case No. 9 of I 963. The appellant, and accused No. 4, arc partners of an industrial con- cern, known as 'Premier Industries'. Accused .\lo. 1 is an Income- tax Consultant, and accused Nos. 2 and 3, arc clerks. in the l ncomc-tax Department. The substance of the prosecution case. against "ll1ese five accused, is that they formed a wnspiraey, to ·cheat the income-tax authorities. in respect of the income-tax assessments, of the Premier Industries, for the assessment year 1960-61. and. in pursuance of the said conspiracy, commi-tted offences. under s. 420 IPC., and s. 5 (I) ( d) read with s. 5 (2). of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 (Act II of 19471. (hereinafter called the Act). Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.