Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 140 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Uttam Chand And Ors. vs Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, ... on 5 March, 1979
In the case of Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Amritsar Income Tax Reports, Vol. 133 para 909 (SC), the Income Tax Department had launched prosecution against the petitioner for filing false return. In the departmental proceedings the Tribunal exonerated the petitioner. Supreme Court held that after the petitioner has been exonerated by the department's Appellate Authority, he could not be prosecuted in a Criminal Court on the same facts.
G.L. Didwania And Anr. vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 24 November, 1993
Likewise, in the case of G.L. Didwania v. Income Tax Officer, 1999 (108) ELT 16 (SC), the petitioner was prosecuted by the Income Tax Department for concealment of income under the Income Tax Act. But the Tribunal who is the final fact finding authority under the Act decided the question in favor of the assesseds. The Supreme Court held that prosecution on the same charges cannot be continued.
Sham Sundar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 21 August, 1989
In the case of Sham Sundar and Ors. v. State of Haryana, , it was held that it is only the partner who actively participated in the business during the relevant time who can be convicted for the offence committed by the company/firm. The Apex Court observed that it is common that some of the partners of the firm may even be not knowing what is going on in the firm on day-to-day basis. There may be partners better known as sleeping partners who are not required to take part in the business of the firm. There may be ladies and children who were admitted for the benefit of the partnership. They may not be knowing about the business of the firm. It would be a travesty of justice to prosecute all partners and ask them to prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge. The obligation of the accused to prove that the offence took place without his knowledge or that he/she exercised all due diligence to prevent such offence arises only when the prosecution establishes that he was responsible for carrying on business and was during the relevant time in-charge of the business. In absence of any such proof, no partner can be convicted. Thus where the evidence produced by the department did not indicate that all the partners were actively participating in the business of the firm, it could not be said that when the offence was committed all the partners were conducting the business of the firm. Therefore, they will not be liable for conviction. As already stated in the present case, there is no specific averment to the effect that the petitioner actively participated and was in control of the day-to-day business of the company. From the averments made in the complaint, it appears that she was imp leaded as accused No. 3 only because she was the Director of the company. From the observation made by the Commissioner at the end of para 45 of his order it is clear that the department had admitted the position that the petitioner started looking after the affairs of the company in 1996 much after the alleged offence took place.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 114A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Assistant Collector Of Customs & Anr vs U.L.R. Malwani And Anr on 16 October, 1968
In the case of Assistant Collector of Customs v. L.R. Malwani, 1999 (110) E.L.T. 317 (SC), the Apex Court held that departmental authorities are not a Court within the meaning of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. So their findings neither operate as a bar to prosecution under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act nor for the same reason it can operate as an issue estopple in a criminal case. There is no dispute with this preposition of law. The findings of the adjudication authority will not operate as a bar to the prosecution. The question to be considered is when departmental authority have not imposed any penalty against the petitioner, will her prosecution or, the same allegation be desirable and should be allowed to continue ?