LexLALJI HARIDAS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19M Fcbniary 7. '700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64] LALJI HARIDAS v. STAIB OF MAHARASIITRA AND ANOTHER (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYA"1GAR, JJ.) Income Tax-False evidence in the proceedings before Income·ttu OU•ccr-For the purpose of s. !95(!)(b) Code of Criminal Pro- cedure the proceedings if proceedings in a court-whether Com- plaint .has to be made by the Income-tax Officer-Indian Incom~ tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 37-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 195(1)(b)-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), SS, 193, 228. The appellant filed a criminal complaint against respondent No. 2 alleging that he had committed an offence under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by giving false evidence in certain proceedings before the Income-tax Officer under s. 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objectioh that the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the said complaint, because the proceedings in which he was alleged to have made a false statement on oath were proceedings before a court within the meaning of s. 195(1)(b) of the Coue of Criminal Procedure. 1898, and since no complaint in writing bad been made by the court of the Income-tax Officer the provision of s. 195(I)(b) created a bar against the competence of the appellant's complaint. On the rejection of this preliminary objection respondent No. 2 preferred a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court impleading the State of Maharashtra as respondent No. I. The High Court allowed the revision application. Thereupon the appellant appealed to this Court on a certificate issued under Art. 134(1 )( c) of the Constitution. The short question before this court was whether the proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under s. 37 of the Income-tax Act can be said.to be a proceeding in any court within the meaning of s. 195(l)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure. Held (per P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J., K. N. Wanchoo and N. Raja· gopala Ayyangar JJ.) (i) While the Income-tax Officer exercises his powers under s. 37(1), (2) and (3), tbe proceedings held by him are judicial proceedings for the purposes of ss. 193, 196 and 228 Indian Penal Code and the false statement alleged to have been made by respondent No. 2 was made in a judicial proceeding within the meaning of s. 193, Indian Penal Code. (ii) It is not necessary to decide the general question whether the 1n,'.omc-tax Officer is a Court or not for s. 37( 4) of the Income-tax 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 701 Act makes the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, judicial pr<>- ceedings for the purposes of s. 193 Indian Penal Code and these judicial proceedings must be treated as proceedings in any court for the purpose of s. 195 (l)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court was right in allowing the revision application on the ground that the condition precedent prescribed by s. 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with as no complaint has been filed by the Income-tax Officer. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 850 and Puran Chand Maneklal, in re: l.L.R. 38 Bom. 642, distinguished. Per Sarkar and Das Gupta JI. (dissenting) (i) From the nature of functions under the various provisions of the Income-tax Act it ii clear that the Income-tax Officer is a part and parcel of the executin organ of the State. The fact that for carrying out some of th.- executive functions he will have the powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure wi11 not make him a limb of the judicial organ. Neither does the fact that he is a quasi-judicial authority make him a. court. (ii) In Jaswant Sugar Mills v., Lakshmi Chand. [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 242 this court has held that the Income-tax Officer is not 'a ', I I ' ' Tribunal and therefore it is obvious t~at he cannot be a coul1j. (iii) To say that the legislature in providing in s. 37(4)' of the Indian Income-tax Act that a proceeding before the specified authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of s. 193 and s. 228 Indian Penal Code intended also to say that such authority shall be deemed to be a court within the meaninv of s. 195 Code of Criminal Procedure would be to impute to the legislature an intention of which it itself had no knowledge. (iv) The words use
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.