Punjab-Haryana High Court
Income-Tax Officer vs Aggarwal Iron Store And Ors. on 17 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: [1987]166ITR289(P&H)
JUDGMENT K.S. Tiwana, J.
1. These three petitions (Crl. Misc. Nos. 4196-M, 4197-M and 4198-M of 1985) arise out of three different trials, but since the question of law is the same, they are being disposed of through a common judgment recorded in Crl. Misc. No. 4196-M of 1985.
2. The facts of the case need not be adverted to as they are not germane to the decision on the point of law involved. The respondents in these three cases were tried by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Safidon, on the complaint filed by the Income-tax Officer, Jind, under Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for attempt to evade tax. The offence in these cases is punishable with minimum imprisonment of three months. The learned trial Magistrate, Safidon, after trial, convicted respondent No. 2 under Section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, but in place of sentencing him to imprisonment, released him on probation.
3. The Income-tax Officer, Jind, had moved the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, in revision which was rejected on the ground that no such revision could lie to the Sessions Judge. After that, the Income-tax Officer, Jind, has approached this court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing these orders.
4. Section 292A was introduced in the Income-tax Act with effect from October 1, 1975, by which the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, were barred from application to the offences committed under the Income-tax Act. The only exception recognised by Section 292A of the Income-tax Act is if the person accused of an offence is below 18 years of age. No other exception like old age can be recognised, as was done by the learned trial Magistrate, in one of the cases, to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. This section specifically prohibits the according of the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to an accused tried for violation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The order of the learned trial Magistrate thus allowing probation to respondent No. 2 against the express provisions of the statute is illegal and cannot be sustained.
5. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate are in clear violation of the statutory provisions of Section 292A of the Income-tax Act and being illegal, amount to misuse of process of law. These orders cannot be permitted to stand.
6. The petitions are accepted. The orders of the learned Magistrate regarding the granting of probation to respondent No. 2 and of the Sessions Judge rejecting the revision as impugned in these petitions are quashed. The cases are remitted to the learned trial Magistrate for passing proper sentence in accordance with the provisions of law. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to put in appearance before the trial Magistrate on February 7, 1986.