TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Indian Penal Code. The second accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under section 47t read with section 465, Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each for the sentences awarded under sections 193 and 471 read with section 465, Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 3 to 6 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offences under section 193 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each for the offences under section 471 read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved Rs. 30,000 from K. R. P. Chettiar and Sons. On the side of the prosecution, PWs Nos. 1 to 12 were examined and several documents were marked and the trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused as aforesaid and the conviction and sentence have been upheld by the lower appellate court. The revision petitioners challenge the conviction and sentence on several grounds. It has been contended that the income-tax proceedings were pending before the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, .Company Circle, Ernakulam, and exhibit P-65 assessment order was also passed on March 22, 1972, and thereafter the entire proceedings were transferred to the office of the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, as per exhibit P-1 order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d return of this Rs. 30,000. It is pointed out by counsel who appeared for the Income-tax Department that these allegations of false entry in the registers were not specifically dealt with by the appellate court and that, therefore, the prosecution has got independent existence. A case of this nature came up before the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Perumal [1984] 149 ITR 696 (SC). There his Lordship Venkataramiah J., speaking for the Full Bench, held (p. 700): "In the criminal case all the ingredients of the offence in question have to be established in order to secure the conviction of the accused. The criminal court no doubt has to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Act having a bearing on the question in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Circle, Cochin, and, according to the revision-petitioners, the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Company Circle, Ernakulam, who passed exhibit P-65 assessment order alone could have filed the complaint in view of section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision in ITO v. Kerala Oil Mills [1986] 162 ITR 292 (Ker). That was a case where the complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, though the income-tax proceedings were pending before the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Alleppey. This court held that the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, was not competent to file the complaint. This decision, though it arises on similar facts, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appeal filed by the accused was accepted and the conviction was set aside on the ground of being null and void in the absence of proof of valid sanction. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of the earlier Division Bench of the High Court was binding in a subsequent proceeding of the same case. The above decision applies with full force to the facts involved in this case. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Gulab Chand Sharma v. H. P. Sharma [1974] 95 ITR 117, held that the decision in previously decided writ petition would operate as res judicata in a subsequently instituted suit between the same parties. The court relied on Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153, wherein it was held that the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d: decide the matter accordingly without paying heed to the earlier decision between the parties. This contention cannot be accepted. If the revision petitioners had any grievance against the earlier order passed in the criminal miscellaneous petition they should have challenged the matter in higher forums. So long as it was not challenged, it has become final and the revision petitioners cannot be allowed to urge the same points at a later stage. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the conviction and sentence entered against the revision petitioners are not open to challenge on the basis that the complaint was filed by an incompetent person. All the revision petitioners have been found guilty by the courts below. The lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
