TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each count passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, in Criminal Case No. 88 of 1990 decided on February 25, 1993, with a modification of the sentences to run concurrently. The Union of India through the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Gwalior, filed a complaint against the applicant accused Radheshyam Renwal for offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the complaint it was alleged that the accused was a partner in the firm M/s. Narsinghdas Renwal, Sarafa, Lashkar; that a raid was conducted by the central excise authorities on the residential premises of the accused on February 4, 1981; that gold ornaments valued at Rs. 1,70,400 silver valued at Rs. 42,552 and ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on October 13, 1986; that considering the case of the accused the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Gwalior, levied a penalty of Rs. 3,720 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act vide order dated March 27, 1987; that the accused filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhopal against the above penalty order of the learned Income-tax Officer; that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhopal dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the penalty order passed by the above Income-tax Officer; that from the above facts it was clear that the accused Radheshyam Renwal had concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. Thus, he committed offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt. Having heard the arguments, I have gone through the record of the case. I find that vide order dated January 20, 1993, recorded in the order-sheet the learned trial court after examining the accused applicant under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asked him whether he wished to produce defence evidence and the applicant replied in the affirmative. The case was then adjourned for recording of the defence evidence to February 17, 1993 and the accused applicant was directed to produce his defence evidence himself. On February 17, 1993, the accused applicant was not personally present before the court and vide the order-sheet he submitted an application for his appearance by counsel. In the said application dated February 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant in defending himself for want of the trial being fair. In view of the above matter without dwelling upon any other argument, this court reaches the conclusion that it is a case which needs remand. In the result, the conviction and sentence impugned are set aside with consequential benefits. The case is remanded to the learned trial court with a direction that an appropriate opportunity be afforded to the applicant accused to produce his defence evidence and thereafter final arguments be heard and the case be disposed of according to law. It is also directed that the applicant should appear before the learned trial court, either in person or through counsel, on December 19, 2005. Let the records of the court below to go back wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
