TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India . JUDGMENT AMARESHWAR SAHAY J. - Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated August 7, 2004, taking cognizance of the offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been taken against the petitioner by the Special Judge, (Economic Offences), Dhanbad. 3. The facts in short are that C. O. Case No. 24 of 2004 was filed before the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad, by one Vijay Bhaskar, Income-tax Officer, Ward No. II(1), Dhanbad, alleging therein that the accused/petitioner Smt. Namita Roy is an assessee having PAN No. ACGPR 3752G and she was an LIC agent. It is alleged that she derived income in the shape of commission from LIC. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, sanction for prosecution was accorded on July 9, 2004, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dhanbad, and then the complainant was filed in the Court of Special Judge (Economic Offences). 4. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad, by order dated August 7, 2004, took cognizance of the offence under sections 277 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner which is under challenge in this application. 5. Mr. Binod Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that "mens rea" is an essential ingredient for launching prosecution against a person for commission of the offence under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erification under this Act or under any rule made thereunder, or delivers an account or statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable,- (i) in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the statement or account had been accepted as true, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six 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." 9. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it appears that se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
