Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Jaipur v. Date Of Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) JAIPUR VS. SMT. GAURA DEVI SB Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1998under section 378 Cr.P.C. against thejudgment dated April 3, 1996 ofSpecial Judge (Communal Riots andMansingh Murder Case) Jaipur by whichthe accused respondent was acquittedof the charge under section 276 C (1)of the Income tax Act and quashed andset aside the order dated Feb. 17,1992 of Special Judge (EconomicOffences) Jaipur convicting theaccused respondent under section 276 C(1) of the Income Tax and sentencedher for three months RI and fine ofRs. 5,000 in default of payment offine to further undergo one month SI. Date of Order : April 16, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Amar Singh for the appellant None present for the accused respondent. BY THE COURT : This appeal has been filed by the INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) JAIPURagainst Smt. Gaura Devi against the judgmentdated April 3, 1996 of Special Judge (CommunalRiots and Mansingh Murder Case) Jaipur by whichthe accused respondent was acquitted of thecharge under section 276 C (1) of the Income taxAct and quashed and set aside the order dated Feb. 17, 1992 of Special Judge (EconomicOffences) Jaipur convicting the accusedrespondent under section 276 C (1) of the IncomeTax and sentenced her for three months RI andfine of Rs. 5,000 in default of payment of fineto further undergo one month SI. Inspite ofnotice to the accused respondent and summoningby bailable warrant, nobody appeared on herbehalf. On the judgment of the appellate courtin April, 1996 the accused respondent was morethan 70 years of age and now she must havecrossed more than 83 years of age. 2. Brief facts of the case are that asearch was conducted on October 12, 1983at the residence and business premises ofaccused respondent. During the course ofsearch statement of accused respondentwas recorded. Accused respondent specifically denied to have any banklocker in her own name or in the jointname of any other family member. Duringcourse of search key of locker No. 388 ofCentral Bank of India Johari Gbazar wasfound in residential premises of accusedrespondent and from inquiries conducted it revealed that from locker No. 388and from another locker No. 2900 of Bankof Rajasthan, Johari Bazar gold ornamentsweighing 1300.50 gms. and 412 gms. worthRs. 2,75,000 were recovered, for whichapproximately tax of Rs. 1,50,000attempted to be evaded by the accusedrespondent. Complaint was filed at theinstance of Commissioner of Income Tax onMarch 31, 1984 in the Court of JudicialMagistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur. Onthis complaint cognizance under section276 C (1) of the I.T. Act and sections 181and 193 IPC were taken by the Court andaccused respondent was summoned bybailable warrants and after herappearance in the court, statements offive witnesses were recorded. Statement ofaccused respondent was also recorded undersection 313 Cr.P.C. and she produced onewitness Prabhu Dayal in defence. Afterhearing arguments the Court of ChiefJudicial Magistrate ( Economic Offences)Jaipur vide judgment dated Feb. 17, 1992 convicted the accused respondent undersection 276 C (1) and sentenced her to 3months RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- and indefault of payment offine she was tounder go one month's SI. Against thisorder accused respondent filed appeal andthe appellate court after hearingarguments allowed the appeal videjudgment dated April 3, 1996. Againstthis order, the present appeal has been filed. convicted the accused respondent undersection 276 C (1) and sentenced her to 3months RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- and indefault of payment offine she was tounder go one month's SI. Against thisorder accused respondent filed appeal andthe appellate court after hearingarguments allowed the appeal videjudgment dated April 3, 1996. Againstthis order, the present appeal has been filed. 3.The learned counsel for theappellant argued that the accusedrespondent evaded tax penalty and interestand thus liable for punishment. Thestatement of accused respondent wasrecorded by Ramesh Chand Chopra onOctober 12, 1983 and she denied to haveany bank locker whereas from the enquiryconducted during search it was found thataccused respondent was having two banklockers having jewelery of 1712.50 Gms.Thus the trial court rightly convicted theaccused respondent but the appellate court set aside the order of acquittal withoutany cogent reason. 4. I have heard the learned counsel forthe appellant and gone through the entirerecord. The judgment passed by theappellate court is perfectly according tolaw and there is no illegality orinfirmity in the same. The appellate courtheld that the offence committed by theaccused respondent was compoundable and nonotice was sent to her before filingcomplaint before the Judicial Magistrateand thus the judgment of conviction wasset aside. The appellate court also gavea finding that the explanation of theaccused respondent before the Incometaxauthorities was accepted and only 205 Gms.Of gold was found to be undeclared. Ifthe Income tax authorities before filingor before getting sanction from theCommissioner of Incometax, correct factswere brought to his notice he would nothave given any sanction for filing the complaint. Thus the order of the appellate court acquitting the accusedrespondent is reasoned order and the samecannot be set aside in appellatejurisdiction. 5. Thus the order passed by the appellatecourt does not call for any interferencein appellate jurisdiction and the appealstands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.OPPareek/