LexT. S. BALIAH versus T. S. RENGACHARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H T. S. BALIAB v. T. S. RENGACHARI DecCJ!lber 12, 1968 [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) Income 'Tax Act, 1922, s. 52-lf repealed s. 177 l.P.C.~lf prosecu- tion under both provisions le11a!-E/Jeat of s. 26 General Clauses Act- Choice of prosecution under either provisions left to l.T.0.-lf violative of Art. 14 of th• Constitution-Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 297 (2)-Not tnG:king express provision for continuing proce.edings pending at com- mencement of Act-Effect of-Ifs. 6 General Clauses Act enabled conti- nuation of pending prosecutions, In respect of the appellant's assessment to income-tax for three years from 1958-59 to 1960-61, the respondent filed three oomplaint petitions before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, at the instance of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, charging the appellant with having committed offences under s. 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and under s. 177 I.J>.C. He also filed another complaint petition in respect of the appellant's assessment to tax for the year 1961-62 under s. 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1%1 and under s. 177 l.P.C. It was alleged that !be appellant had made statements in verification under the Income-tax Act which were false knowing them to be false and had deliberately sup- pressed certain income. The appellant thereafter filed four applications before the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying that the legality of the trial fcJr the offences should be tried as a preliminary issue. This appli- cation was dismissed and a revision petition to !lie High Court was also dismissed. In appeal to this Court it was contended Inter a/la on behalf of the appellant (i) that be could only be prosecuted under s. 52 of the 1922 Act which was a special provision and not under s. 177 I.P.C. which was a general provision and which should be taken to have been repealed by implication; and that bis prosecution under s. 177 I.P.C. was therefore illegal; (ii) under clause (2) (a) to (m) of s. 297 of the 1961 Act the prosecutions in 'respect of assessment proceedings pending at the com- mencement of the 1961 Act were not expressly saved and it must there- fore be presumed that Parliament had not intended to save such prosecu- tions; (iii) in view of the provisions of s. 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the appellant could be prosecuted either under s. 52 of the 1922 Aet or under s. 177 I.P.C. and not under both provisions at the same time (iv) the appellant's prosecution, was illegal as the complaint peti- tions were required to be filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner himself under the 1922 Act but this requirement had not been complied with; (v) as it was open to the Income-tax Officer to prosecute the appellant either under s. 177 l.P.C. or unde'r s. 52 of the 1922 Act. and the choice of prosecution was left to the arbitrary or unguided discretion of the Income-tax Officer, there was a violation of the guarantee under Art. 14 of the Constitution. HELD : Dismissini the appeal : ( i) Althou~h ·there were some differences between the provmions of ., 52 of the 1922 Act and s. 177 l.P.C., there was no repugnancy or In· consiStency between the two statutes. Section 22 af the .1922 Act did not lllter fhe Q8111re or quality of the Qlfence under s. 177 l.P.C. hut merely 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R provided a new course of procedure for what was already an offence. In A a case of this description the new statute Is regarded not as superseding. nor repealin~ bv implication the previous law, but as cumulative. [69 DJ R. v. Robinson (1759) 2 Burr. 800, 803 and R. ,._Hopkins [1893] 1 Q.B. 621 relied on. (ii) Parliament had not made any detailed provision for thr institu- tion of prosecutions in respect of prriceedings which were pending at the B commencement of the 1961 Act. In view of this and the absence of any contrary intention ex)'.!res"sed in the provisions of the 1961 Act, '· 6 cif the General Clauses Act was applicable in the present case and the pro- secution of the appellant under s. 52 of the 1922 Act was therefore valid. [72 DJ Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. C.l.T. West Bengal 66 I.T.R. 680 and The 111 Income-tax Officer, Mangalore v. Sri N. Damodar BhGt [1969] ··c 2 S.C.R. 29. referred to. (iii) A plain readin~ of s. 26 of the General Clauses Act shows that there is no bar to the trial o'r copvic.tion of the offender under both enact- ments but there is only bar to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.