Bombay High Court Quashes Charges Against Directors in Income Tax Search Statement Case — Statements Under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act Not 'Evidence' for Perjury Prosecution Without Complaint Under Section 195 CrPC. Statements made during search under Section 132(4) are deemed to be in a judicial proceeding under Section 136 of Income Tax Act, 1961, requiring a complaint by the income tax authority before prosecution for offences under Sections 181, 201, 204 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 107
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, husband and wife and directors of companies, were accused of offences under Sections 181 (false statement on oath), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 204 (destruction of document) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on statements made during a search conducted under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigations), filed a complaint before the JMFC, Margao, who took cognizance and framed charges. The petitioners sought discharge, which was refused by the JMFC and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. They then filed criminal writ petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The key legal issue was whether the prosecution could proceed without a complaint in writing by the income tax authority, as required under Section 195 CrPC, given that proceedings under the Income Tax Act are deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 136 of that Act. The court examined Section 136, which deems proceedings before an income tax authority as judicial proceedings for purposes of Sections 193 and 228 IPC and for Section 196 IPC, and deems the authority as a Civil Court for purposes of Section 195 CrPC. Section 132(4) allows the authorised officer to examine on oath any person during search, and such statements may be used in evidence. The court held that the statements made under Section 132(4) were made in a proceeding deemed to be a judicial proceeding, and therefore any offence of false statement or related offences would attract the bar under Section 195 CrPC, which requires a complaint by the court or authority before cognizance can be taken. Since no such complaint was filed by the income tax authority, the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and framing charge was without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petitions, quashed the orders of the JMFC and Additional Sessions Judge, and discharged the petitioners.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Section 195 CrPC - Bar against taking cognizance - Complaint by court required - Prosecution for offences under Sections 181, 201 and 204 IPC based on statements made during search under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be taken cognizance of without a complaint in writing by the concerned court or authority, as the statements were made in a proceeding deemed to be judicial proceeding under Section 136 of the Income Tax Act. Held that the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and framing charge was without jurisdiction (Paras 4-8).

B) Income Tax Act - Section 136 - Deemed judicial proceeding - Statements under Section 132(4) - Statements made during search under Section 132(4) are made in a proceeding deemed to be judicial proceeding under Section 136, and therefore any false statement therein attracts the bar under Section 195 CrPC. Held that the income tax authority is deemed to be a Civil Court for purposes of Section 195 CrPC, and a complaint by such authority is necessary (Paras 4-6).

C) Indian Penal Code - Sections 181, 201, 204 - False statement, disappearance of evidence, destruction of document - Prosecution without complaint under Section 195 CrPC is invalid - The allegations that the accused made false statements and caused disappearance of evidence during search under Section 132(4) cannot be prosecuted without a complaint by the income tax authority. Held that the proceedings are quashed (Paras 7-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners/accused can be prosecuted for offences under Sections 181, 201 and 204 IPC based on statements made during a search under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without a complaint by the income tax authority as required under Section 195 CrPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petitions, quashed the orders dated 24/09/2009 of JMFC, Margao and 7/04/2010 of Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, and discharged the petitioners from the offences under Sections 181, 201 and 204 IPC.

Law Points

  • Section 482 CrPC
  • Section 195 CrPC
  • Section 136 Income Tax Act
  • Section 132(4) Income Tax Act
  • Sections 181/201/204 IPC
  • judicial proceeding
  • false evidence
  • complaint by court
  • sanction for prosecution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 190

Criminal Writ Petitions Nos.71 and 72 of 2010

2010-10-12

N.A. Britto, J.

2010:BHC-GOA:2588

Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar for Petitioners, Ms. Asha Dessai for Respondent No.1

Smt. Yogita P. Gosalia and Shri Pravinkumar Gosalia

Shri S.B. Morey and State of Goa

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petitions under Section 482 CrPC challenging orders refusing discharge and framing charges for offences under Sections 181, 201, 204 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of orders dated 24/09/2009 of JMFC, Margao and 7/04/2010 of Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, and discharge of petitioners.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 181, 201, 204 IPC based on statements made during a search under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act, without a complaint under Section 195 CrPC.

Previous Decisions

JMFC, Margao refused to discharge petitioners and framed charges; Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji upheld that order on 7/04/2010.

Issues

Whether the prosecution for offences under Sections 181, 201, 204 IPC based on statements made during search under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act is maintainable without a complaint under Section 195 CrPC? Whether the proceedings under Section 132(4) of Income Tax Act are deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 136 of the Act, attracting the bar under Section 195 CrPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the statements were made in a proceeding deemed to be judicial proceeding under Section 136 of Income Tax Act, and therefore no cognizance could be taken without a complaint by the income tax authority under Section 195 CrPC. Respondent argued that the proceedings under Section 132(4) are not judicial proceedings and Section 195 CrPC does not apply.

Ratio Decidendi

Statements made under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are made in a proceeding deemed to be a judicial proceeding under Section 136 of that Act. Therefore, any offence of false statement or related offences attracts the bar under Section 195 CrPC, which requires a complaint in writing by the concerned court or authority before cognizance can be taken. Since no such complaint was filed, the Magistrate's order taking cognizance and framing charge was without jurisdiction.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 136 provides that any proceedings under this Act (Income Tax Act, 1961) before an income-tax authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and 228 and for the purpose of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code... The petitions are directed against orders dated 7/04/2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji upholding the orders dated 24/09/2009 of the learned JMFC, Margao, refusing to discharge the petitioners/accused under Section 181,201 and 204 IPC and framing charge against the petitioners for offences under said sections.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a complaint before JMFC, Margao, who took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 181, 201, 204 IPC. Petitioners sought discharge, which was refused on 24/09/2009. Petitioners appealed to Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, who upheld the order on 7/04/2010. Petitioners then filed criminal writ petitions under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court at Goa, which were allowed on 12/10/2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 195, 482
  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 132(4), 136
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 181, 201, 204
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Surplus Teacher Declaration Due to Violation of Seniority Rules Under MEPS Act, 1977. Petitioner's Appointment Approved and Seniority Ignored by Education Officer.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Section 9 Petition as Misuse of Process in Redevelopment Dispute with Non-Member Occupant. Court holds that a developer cannot seek interim relief against a non-signatory occupant under Section 9 of the Arbitra...