Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(17) In the affidavit, the petitioner said that he lived in the house for two and more years. This statement is said to be false because in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act, he admitted that he lived there only for a shorter period. This statement can be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act, I see no reason why it cannot because for the purposes under section 193 Indian Penal Code . But a subsequent contradictory statement will not make an earlier one a false one, unless the two statements are so wholly irreconcilable that one of them must. necessarily be false. Shri Wazir Singh urged that the statement under section 132 showed 'that it will be proved by other evidence. that the house was not at all capable of residence. If it were, the petitioner would have paid tax on notional income from the house property. The prosecution will be able to prove that the affidavit that the petitioner lived in the house was a blatant lie. It is said that there were no doors', no shutters, no flush and no light in the premises and the petitioner could just not have lived there. I do not think all these amenities are necessary for living or residing in a place. If the petitioner is alleged to have given false evidence or to have fabricated false evidence, he may still recharged under section 196. Where he makes a document containing a false statement and files it, he is guilty under section 196 Indian Penal Code as well for corruptly using fabricated evidence. false affidavit may be covered by section 192/196 Indian Penal Code . In Lalji Haridas v. The State of Maharashtra, , it was held that the proceedings' before an Income-tax Officer were judicial proceedings in a court within the meaning of section 195(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Code . But it was not a civil or criminal or revenue court and therefore it was not incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer to follow the procedure laid down in section 476 Criminal Procedure Code . : Balwant Singh and another v. L. C. Bharupal and another, (1968) 1 Scwr 320 . There is no doubt that sections 195 and 476 Cr.P.C. were intended to be read together and they were so read in case of courts, but one is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot so read them in case of an Income-tax Officer in 'so far as' the complaints filed before the new Code came into force, are concerned; and this matter relates to such period. But that does not mean that the Income-tax Officer should like an ordinary complainant proceed to prosecute the assessed without giving a hearing to the man. It will not be proper for a court to summarily come to any conclusion upon the mere perusal of the statements contained in the affidavit that they are false and that the person swearing to them should be prosecuted. It is essential that the person concerned should be given an opportunity in the shape of a preliminary inquiry like the one provided in section 476 Criminal Procedure Code . before the court comes to a conclusion that he has deliberately made a false statement : In re. S. Ramalingam, Air, 1965 Mad. 100. That has not been done. Instead, the prosecution was launched soon after the notice under section 148 of the Act was served and on the same day a second return was filed by the assessed in response to notice u/s 148. Lord Denning in Selvarajan v. Race Relations Board, 1976 AH. E.R. 12 at 19, said : "The fundamental rule is that, if a person may be subjected to pains or penalties, or be exposed to prosecution or proceedings, or deprived of remedies or redress, or in some such way adversely affected by the investigation and report, then he should be told the case made against him and be afforded a fair opportunity of answering it."