TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Indore, in Criminal Case No.5 of 1985, whereby the respondents were convicted of an offence punishable under section 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. but were released by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing the bond for a period of two years of good conduct, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that a private complaint was filed against four accused namely M/s. Rajkamal Agencies, a registered partnership firm and its three partners Smt. Mamta Sethi, Smt. Sheela Jain and Rameshchandra Sethi under section 276C, 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code on March 29, 1985, by the the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 26, 1997, and was dismissed holding that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the hon'ble apex court which was numbered as Crl. A. No. 661 of 2000 arising out of SLP No. 823 of 1999, which was allowed by the apex court vide order dated August 11, 2000 ( Union of India v. Smt. Mamta Sethi [2001] 248 ITR 102 (SC)) and the order passed by this court was set aside with the following directions (page 102): "The contention of the appellant-Union is that the trial court as well as the High Court missed to notice section 292A of the Income-tax Act containing an express bar against the invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure Code It is submitted that the appeal should have been filed by the public prosecutor under the directions of the Government of India. It is submitted that there is no agency empowered to make investigation under the Act. It is submitted that public prosecutor has been defined under section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The standing counsel of the Department is not appointed as public prosecutor within the meaning of section 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant under section 377(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is not maintainable. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Krishnamoorty , AIR 1997 SC 1904, wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x months but which may extend to seven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine. (2) If a person wlfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine." Section 277 reads as under: False statement in verification, etc .- If a person makes a st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
