TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81 of 1998 against the conviction of the applicants and the sentence imposed on them by the learned Third Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. Applicant No. 1, Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal, was a partnership firm and applicant Nos. 2 (since decd.) and 3 were the partners of the aforesaid firm. The other partners of the firm, namely, Balaram and Janabai have expired during the trial. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions 276CC and 278B and the sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on applicant No. 1 firm while the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000. The applicants preferred an appeal against their conviction, but their appeal was rejected and the order of conviction of sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was maintained by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay satisfactory and imposed penalty, therefore, the delay was wilful. The learned trial court was not correct in basing conviction on the findings of the taxing authority. The considerations for imposing penalty and those for prosecution are quite different. Prem Prakash Saxena (PW 1) has admitted in paragraph 7 of his statement that he had come to know that some partners of the firm were old and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e return which was filed delayed, therefore, it cannot be said that intention of the applicants was not to cause delay. According to the learned trial court, if the entire tax had been deposited earlier and then the return had been filed after a delay then. it could have been inferred that the applicants did not intend to cause delay. But the learned trial court did not consider the aforementioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
