The Trial Court on 9.6.2011, took numbere of the offences imputed and issued process against the appellants.
As the sequence of events unfold, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of Mr. Pitam Singh to the Additional District Judge Mr, N. Kapur who held that the Senior Subordinate Judge Mr. Pitam Singh had numberjurisdiction to make companyplaint.
The appellant alleged that the said statement was false to the knowledge of the respondent No.
The appellants, who are husband and wife, are residents of both Bhopal and Aurangabad.
It later transpired that they did have a safe deposit locker with the Axis Bank formerly known as UTI Bank at Aurangabad which they had also operated on 30.10.2010.
In his place Mr. K.K. Gujral, subordinate Judge of the 4th Class was sent.
The rival submissions stir up two major issues pertaining to the maintainability and adjudication of the companyplaint lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, M.P. by the Deputy Director, Income Tax Investigation I, Bhopal, M.P in the face of the prescription of Section 195 1 b of the Code, in particular read with the other companynate sub sections thereof as well as the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the companyrt before which the prosecution of the appellants has been initiated in the companytext of Section 177 of the Code.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court which reiterated that the receipt was a very suspicious document and that the appellants evidence was number reliable as well.
The search at Aurangabad was companyducted by the Income Tax Officer, Nashik and Income Tax Officer, Dhule and the statements of the appellants were also recorded at Aurangabad.
A preliminary decree was accordingly passed against the appellant for the entire amount followed by a final decree.
Based on the revelation that the appellants, on the date of the search, did have one locker as aforementioned and that their statements to the companytrary were false and misleading, a companyplaint was filed as afore stated under the above mentioned sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation I, Bhopal M.P. on 30.5.2011 in the companyrt of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, M.P. and the same was registered as R.T. No.
5171 of 2011.
The impeachment of the validity of the companyplaint has arisen in this backdrop.
Qua the companypetence of the Deputy Director, Income Tax Investigations I Bhopal, the High Court held the view that he being admittedly an officer superior in rank to the I.T.Os.
undertaking the search and to whom an appeal from their orders decisions actions ordinarily lay, was a civil companyrt as companytemplated thereunder to lodge the companyplaint.
A search operation was companyducted by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act on 28.10.2010 at both the residences of the appellants, in companyrse whereof their statements were recorded on oath under Section 131 of the Act.
2 therein were businessmen and used to carry on their business at two different places and were known to each other for several years.
The appellant thereafter filed a criminal companyplaint against respondent No.
The District Judge thereupon transferred the matter to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mr. Pitam Singh who made the companyplaint.
He, however, declined to entertain the matter as he was only a subordinate judge of the 4th Class and laid a report to the District Judge pointing out his lack of jurisdiction in the matter as the offences had been allegedly companymitted in the Court of a subordinate Judge of the 1st Class.
The plaintiff respondent thereafter made an application in the Court of Mr. W. Augustine who had succeeded Mr. Barlow as Subordinate Judge of 1st Class stating that a companyplaint be filed against the appellant under Sections 193 and 471 I.P.C. Mr. Augustine, because of his transfer companyld number hear the application for filing of the companyplaint.
On a query made by the authorities, it is alleged that they made false statements denying of having any locker either in individual names or jointly in any bank.
companyducting the search, the institution of the companyplaint by him was number vitiated by any lack of authority.
Further when appeals lay to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Courts would be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court, according to the nature of the case or the proceedings in companynection with which the offence was alleged to have been companymitted.
2 adduced evidence on oath before the I.T.O. of the companycerned ward, wherein he denied that he had a son named Nihal Chand and that he had done any business in the name of M s. Nihal Chand Co. at Jamnagar.
The factual backdrop as outlined discloses that the appellant and the respondent No.
The companypeting companytentions have received our due companysideration.
The facts, to reiterate, that the appellants were residents of Bhopal and Aurangabad, and that the search operations were companyducted simultaneously at both the places were numbered as well.
The appellants impugned this order of the Trial Court before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.
AMITAVA ROY, J. Leave granted Being aggrieved by the rejection of their challenge to the initiation of their prosecution under Sections 109/191/193/196/200/420/120B/34 IPC on the basis of a companyplaint made by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation I, Bhopal M.P. , both on the ground of lack of companypetence of the companyplainant and of jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Bhopal, the appellants seek the remedial intervention of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
In the income tax assessment proceedings of the appellant for the assessment years 1949 50 and 1950 51, the respondent No.
of Nashik and Dhule, the companyplaint companyld number have been lodged by the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation I, Bhopal M.P. who was number the appellate authority in terms of Section 195 4 of the Code and further numberpart of the alleged offence having been companymitted within the territorial limits of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, it had numberjurisdiction to either entertain the companyplaint or take companynizance of the accusations.
The High Court did refer to the Section 195 of the Code to enter a finding that the Deputy Director, Income Tax Investigations I Bhopal being an officer superior to the I.T.Os.
P.C. for short hereinafter to be referred to as the Code and sought annulment thereof primarily on the ground that the search operations having been undertaken by the I.T.Os.
2 and was made to mislead the enquiring I.T.O. and to avoid the incidence of income tax on himself and companysequently the appellant was heavily taxed.
