Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 766 - HC - Income TaxAppeal in case of acquittal - prosecution u/s 277A - application seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 378 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) - alleging falsification of books of accounts and documents while evading tax - complaint under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and the respondent stood acquitted - maintainability of the present application for condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- There is no controversy before this Court about the fact that an application for special leave to appeal on behalf of the applicant - Department as the complainant in the present case is governed by special law found in Section 378(4) and (5) of the Cr.P.C. In the case where the complainant is a public servant, as in the present case, the period of limitation is six months and in every other case it is 60 days under Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C. In this context when the law laid down by the Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in the case of Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra [1973 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT] and followed in Gopal Sardar v/s. Karuna Sardar [2004 (3) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT], as also in other subsequent judgments, is perused and appreciated, this Court finds that the test to be applied for examining as to whether a special law “expressly excludes” applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, is not that such specific provisions must necessarily be excluded by referring to them, but the test to be applied would be the one specified by the Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra(supra) i.e. by analyzing the scheme of the special law, the nature of remedy provided therein as the legislature intended it to be a complete Code by itself, which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. A very significant and important question regarding power and jurisdiction of this Court arises in the present matter. Considering the views expressed in the abovementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the field, we see no option but to resort to Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to make a reference to two or more judges of this Court, on questions framed herein below. The papers of this case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for the matter to be heard more advantageously by a bench of two or more judges, on the following questions: 1) Whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, stand expressly excluded under Section 378(4) and (5) of the Cr.P.C. as special law for appeals against acquittal to be filed by the complainant, by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2) Whether the Judgment of a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mangu Ram and others v/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi[1975 (10) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT] is per incuriam, in view of the earlier judgment of a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in the case of Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra(supra)? 3) Whether judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Sardar v/s. Karuna Sardar [2004 (3) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT]holds that judgment of two Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangu Ram and others v/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) is not good law in view of the aforesaid earlier judgment of the Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra [1973 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT]? 4) Whether judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s. Sharmaji Textiles v/s. M/s. Sandeep Traders and others[2009 (1) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] correctly holds that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Sardar v/s. Karuna Sardar [2004 (3) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT] has not disturbed the earlier judgment of the Bench of two Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangu Ram and others v/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra)? 5) Whether the test laid down in Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra(supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court must be applied to the applications for special leave to appeal filed under Section 378 (4) and (5) of the Cr.P.C. in the context of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963? 6) Whether upon applying the test laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Dev Narain Yadav v/s. Lalit Narain Mishra(supra) i.e. considering the scheme of the special law under Section 378(4) and (5) of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to applications for special leave to appeal by complainants, nature of the remedy provided therein, intending it to be a complete Code in itself, it can be said that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are excluded in their applicability to such applications for special leave to appeal? 7) In the light of the above, whether the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicant - Department is maintainable?
|