Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The applicant in this case is a person against whom a complaint has been made of offences under Sections 177, 193, 196, 199 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be observed that these are all offences which are included in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They all arose out of what the applicant is supposed to have done in connection with proceedings before an Income-tax Collector. Now undoubtedly an Income-tax Collector is a public servant, and as to the offence under Section 177 his sanction would be required under Clause (a) of Section 195 and what appears to be a sanction was in fact given by the Income-tax Collector. But it is now spent, or rather was spent before this complaint was made, because the complaint was made much more than six months after the sanction had been given. So far then it appears that as regards Section 177 these proceedings are not lawful in their inception and should be set aside. As regards the other Sections 193, 196, 199 and 471 they are subject to precisely the same infirmity if the Income-tax Collector is a "Court" within the meaning of cls. (6) and (c) of Section 195. On this matter, i.e., whether an Income-tax Collector is such a "Court" there is a certain amount of authority which, in the main, favours the view that he is a " Court." But a Bench of this Court decided in 1906 that an Income-tax Collector is not a " Court" within the meaning of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code: In re Kalidas . If he is not a " Court" within the meaning or that section it is at least to me difficult, inspite of the definition of " Court " in Section 195, to suppose that he can be a "Court" within the meaning of the latter section for the purpose of the two sections is very much the same and their connection is intimate.

5. If the decision of the Full Bench is that an Income-tax Collector is a " Court" then I think the whole of those proceedings must be set aside.

Shah, J.

6. I concur. This is an application to quash the proceedings arising out of a complaint lodged by Mr. T.P. Lakhia, the Resident First Class Magistrate of Nadiad, on the 10th October 1913. The complaint purports to have been made with the sanction of the Income-tax Collector dated 23rd July 1912, and relates to offences which are mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is clear that the complaint cannot be entertained by any Court, if the order of the 23rd July 1912 is a sanction and if a sanction is necessary under the section. The order of the 23rd July 1912 was made by the Income-tax Collector after giving due notice to the petitioner, and though the terms of the order do not place the matter beyond dispute, it is fairly open to the construction that it 13 a sanction and not merely a departmental direction to prosecute. The complaint, so far as it relates to the offence under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, can be taken cognizance of only with the previous sanction or on the complaint of the public servant concerned or of some servant to whom he is subordinate. Treating the Income-tax Collector's order of the 23rd July as a sanction, the proceedings so far as they relate to the offence under Section 177, Indian Penal Code, must be set aside as the sanction was not in force at the date of the complaint owing to the lapse of time. Even if it be not a sanction, the same result must follow, as there can be no doubt that the present complaint is not made by the Income-tax Collector or by his superior. The present complainant, who is the Resident Magistrate at Nadiad, has nothing to do with the Income-tax Collector or his superior, and in my opinion he can lodge the complaint only with the sanction of the proper authority.