TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the conclusion that: 1. No offence against the accused stood proved since provisions of Oath Act, 1969 have not been complied with inasmuch statement of accused was recorded in parts after taking breaks and oath was not administered to him by Deputy Director of Income Tax regarding his statement after every break. 2. The sanction to prosecute the accused as required under Section 181 IPC has not been properly proved. 3. It has been established on record that accused was hypertensive and undergoing regular treatment at the time of search and seizure and he could be perplexed at that time in view of his medical condition and as admitted by PW1 in his cross-examination that accused was in nervous state of mind while making statement, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment, the accused had made statement having glaring contradiction with regard to existence of locker No.152 with State Bank of Indore, Rewari held in the joint name of the accused and his wife. The accused had made a statement on oath denying knowledge of existence of any such locker which was proved to be a false statement purposely made before a Public Servant since this locker was actually found to be there in the name of the accused and his wife. After the complaint was filed, the accused was summoned by the Court and he put in appearance. During evidence of complainant four witnesses were examined and thereafter chargesheet was served upon accused for commission of offence under section 181 IPC. To prove its case, the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has approached this Court moving an application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of Special Leave to appeal from order of acquittal dated 01.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari in complaint No.40 titled as Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Hissar vs. Dr. Kaushal Goyal. On notice, the respondent put in appearance through counsel. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I conclude that no ground is made out to grant special leave to appeal. The judgment passed by the trial Court is well reasoned one and doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not sustainable in the hands of the assessee and he has explained the sources. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee (Dr.Kaushal Goyal) was allowed and addition was deleted. Thus it comes out that it was not a case of concealment of income. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to citation M/s Shastri Sales Corporation and others Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3(3), 1996 Crl.Law Journal 449 by Nagpur Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay wherein penalty proceedings had been initiated under provisions of Income Tax Act, however, the criminal complaint was filed on same facts during pendency of such proceedings. The penalty order was quashed by final authority. It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
