Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal complaint filed by the appellant, a businessman, against respondent No.2, another businessman, alleging that respondent No.2 had committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by giving false evidence on oath before an Income-tax Officer. The false evidence was given during income-tax assessment proceedings of the appellant for assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, where respondent No.2 denied having a son named Nihal Chand and carrying on business in the name of M/s. Nihal Chand & Co. at Jamnagar. The appellant claimed these statements were false to respondent No.2's knowledge and led to the appellant being heavily taxed. On 24 November 1959, the appellant filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanades, Bombay. Respondent No.2 raised a preliminary objection that the Magistrate could not take cognizance because the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer were proceedings before a court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no complaint in writing had been made by the Income-tax Officer. The Presidency Magistrate rejected the objection, holding that the Income-tax Officer was not a court. Respondent No.2 then filed Criminal Revision Application No. 1142 of 1960 before the Bombay High Court, which reversed the Magistrate's order and dismissed the appellant's complaint, holding that the Income-tax Officer was a court under Section 195(1)(b). The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The core legal issue was whether proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 are proceedings in any court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. The Supreme Court examined Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, which confers powers on Income-tax Officers, including powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 37(4), which provides that any proceeding before any authority referred to in the section shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 IPC. The majority held that since Section 37(4) deems such proceedings to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of Section 193 IPC, those judicial proceedings must be treated as proceedings in any court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Therefore, the condition precedent of a complaint by the Income-tax Officer had not been fulfilled, and the private complaint was barred. The court distinguished Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Puran Chand Maneklal. The dissenting judges held that the Income-tax Officer is not a court, being part of the executive organ, and that Section 37(4) did not deem the authority to be a court for Section 195 CrPC. The final decision dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Bar under Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Proceedings under Section 37 Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 deemed judicial proceedings under Section 37(4) for purposes of Sections 193 and 228 IPC; such judicial proceedings must be treated as proceedings in any court for purposes of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC; therefore private complaint for false evidence without written complaint by Income-tax Officer was barred - Held that the High Court was right in allowing revision and dismissing complaint. B) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Section 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 37(4) Income-tax Act, 1922 - False statement made on oath before Income-tax Officer during proceedings under Section 37(1)-(3) was made in a judicial proceeding within meaning of Section 193 IPC, attracting higher punishment under first part of Section 193. C) Interpretation - Deemed Provisions - Section 37(4) Income-tax Act, 1922 - Statutory fiction that proceedings are judicial proceedings for Sections 193 and 228 IPC necessarily implies they are proceedings in a court for Section 195(1)(b) CrPC; no need to decide general question whether Income-tax Officer is a court. D) Dissenting View - Income-tax Officer not a court - Functions under Income-tax Act executive; quasi-judicial authority not court; Section 37(4) does not deem authority a court for Section 195 CrPC; in view of Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand, ITO not tribunal, hence not court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under Section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 can be said to be a proceeding in any court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; majority held that proceedings before Income-tax Officer under Section 37 are judicial proceedings for purposes of Sections 193 and 228 IPC and must be treated as proceedings in any court for purposes of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC; therefore private complaint was not maintainable without written complaint by the Income-tax Officer. The Bombay High Court order allowing revision and dismissing the complaint was upheld. Dissent: Income-tax Officer not a court; appeal should have been allowed.
Law Points
- Proceedings under Section 37 of Income-tax Act
- 1922 are judicial proceedings for purposes of Sections 193 and 228 IPC
- judicial proceedings under Section 37(4) must be treated as proceedings in any court for Section 195(1)(b) CrPC
- private complaint for false evidence without written complaint by Income-tax Officer is barred
- Income-tax Officer need not be generally declared a court
- dissenting view held Income-tax Officer is not a court.
