S.b. Criminal Appeal v. M/S. Parnamiconstruction Co. & Ors

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.539/1991(Income Tax Officer Versus M/s. ParnamiConstruction Co. & Ors.) Date of Judgment :: 11[th] May, 2015 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Amar Singh Rajawat) counsel for appellantMr. Sudhir Jain )Mr. J.K. Dhingra, counsel for the accusedrespondentsThis criminal appeal has been filedby the appellant against the Judgment dated5.5.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate,Special Court (Economic Offences), Rajasthan,Jaipur in Case No. 131/1988, by which hefound guilty and convicted accused respondentno.1 for the offence under Section 276DD andaccused respondents no. 2 to 10 for theoffence under Section 276DD readwith Section278B of IT Act, but awarded the sentence ofimprisonment till rising of the court torespondents no. 2 to 10 and imposed a fine ofRs. 300/- only on each of the accusedrespondents no. 1 to 10 and in default ofpayment of fine, respondents no. 2 to 10 weredirected to further undergo RI of one month. Brief facts of the case are as under:- “On 30.3.1988, the Income Tax Officerfiled a complaint in the trial court. Afterhearing the arguments, the learned trialcourt took cognizance on 31.5.1988 andsummoned the accused persons. Accused Ram Dayal expired on 10.5.1988, as such rest ofthe accused persons were read over thesubstance of accusation. They denied thesame and claimed for trial. During the courseof trial, on 4.5.1990, an application wasmoved by the accused respondents no. 1 to 10confessing their guilt just to purchase thepeace in mind and the plea of guilt ofaccused persons was accepted by the trialcourt on 5.5.190 and accused respondent no.1was held guilty under Section 276DD andaccused respondents no. 2 to 10 under Section276DD readwith Sectin 278B of IT Act andsentenced them as indicated here-in-above. Against the said order of the trialcourt, this criminal appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellanthas contended that accused respondents no. 2to 10 have been sentenced till rising of thecourt and a meager fine of Rs. 300/- only hadbeen imposed, hence the impugned judgment bemodified and sentence as well as fine imposedupon the accused respondents should beenhanced. On the other hand, learned counselfor the respondents has contended that thematter is related to the year 1988, which is approximately 27 years ago from today; 27years have already elapsed; one of the co-accused Chiman Lal has expired; the accusedrespondents confessed the offence just topurchase the peace in the mind; the accusedrespondents were old age persons and now day-by-day they are becoming older and they havealready served the sentence, hence neitherthe sentence should be enhanced nor the fineshould be enhanced after a lapse of 27 years.I have heard learned counsel for theparties and carefully perused the relevantmaterial on record. Lookingtothefactsandcircumstances of the case that the accusedrespondents have already confessed and theyhave served the sentence awarded to them and27 years have already been elapsed, I do notthink it proper to enhance the sentence northe amount of fine imposed upon therespondents by the trial court. In view of above the appeal filed bythe appellant being without any substance ishereby dismissed after confirming thejudgment passed by the trial court. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. DK All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip KhandelwalPA