Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis supplied)

26. After closure of submissions, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted a compilation of photocopies of 15 judgments, and he has submitted copies to two judgments with his written submissions and I proceed to deal with those judgments in the following paragraphs: -

27. In Dipesh Chandak v. Union of India, (2004) 8 SCC 511, the appellant was an accused in a number of cases pertaining to the Fodder Scam in the Animal Husbandry Department of Bihar but the trial judge had passed an order dated 28.08.1998 granting him pardon, on the condition that he makes a full and complete disclosure. On the basis of the statement made by the accused, the Income Tax Department issued a show-cause notice to him as to why prosecution should not be initiated against him, under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, for having filed false returns of income tax. The appellant stated that he has been granted a pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. and thus the show-cause notice was not maintainable. The Commissioner of Income Tax rejected the contention and opined that the pardon was restricted only to offences under IPC only. Accordingly, Complaint Case was registered under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act and the Court of Economic Offences, Patna, took cognizance and issued summons. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing this complaint. The High Court dismissed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the terms of the pardon had not been fulfilled till then and till full evidence was given by the appellant and the trial of all cases stood concluded, he continued to be an accused and, therefore, cannot claim immunity from prosecution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -