1 to the said Revision Application.
1142 of 1960 before the Bombay High Court.
At the hearing of the said companyplaint, respondent No.
The State of Maharashtra was impleaded as respondent No.
The examination itself took place in relation to assessment proceedings against the companyplainant for the years 1949 50, and 1950 51.
Against the said decision of the Presidency Magistrate, respondent No.
K. Kapur and R. H. Dhebar.,
2 raised a preliminary objection that the learned Magistrate companyld number take companynizance of the said companyplaint, because the proceedings in which he was alleged to have made a false statement on oath were proceedings before a Court within the meaning of s. 195 1 b Cr.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 30, 1962, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General, J. B. Dada chanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
2 Mulii Maniial Kamdar are businessmen and they carry oil their business in Jamnagar and Bombay respectively.
On November 24, 1949, the appellant filed a companyplaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, alleging that when the respondent Mulji Manilal Kamdar was examined on companymission by the Income tax Officer, Jamnagar Circle, Jamnagar, he gave answers which were false to his knowledge.
They have known each other for several years past in the companyrse of their ordinary business activities.
This objection was rejected by the Presidency Magistrate.
P.C., and since numbercomplaint in writing had been made by the Court of the Income tax Officer before which the said proceedings were companyducted, the provisions of s. 1 95 1 b created a bar against the companypetence of the appellants companyplaint.
I.L.R. 38 Boni.
This companytention was based on a submission that the Income tax Officer was a companyrt within the meaning of s. 195 1 b .
2 under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code No.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar C.J. The dissenting opinion of Sarkar and Das Gupta JJ.
was delivered by Das Gupta J. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J. The short question of law which arises for our decision in the present appeal is whether the proceeding before an Income tax Officer under section 37 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 No.
sult of the said false statements, the appellant was heavily taxed.
As a re.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
T. Desai, J. L. Jain and V. J. Merchant, for respondent No.
2 gave evidence on oath before the Income tax Officer, Ward A, Jamnagar on the 4th December, 1958.
This question arises in this way.
141 of 1962.
134 1 c of the Constitution and it is with the said certificate that he has brought the present appeal before us.
On the 24th November, 1959, the appellant filed a criminal companyplaint against respondent No.
2 preferred a Criminal Revision Application No.
2 and were made by him to mislead the Income tax Officer and to avoid the incidence of income tax on himself.
An objection was raised by the accused that in the absence of a companyplaint by the Income tax Officer before whom the false statement was alleged to have been made the Magistrate was debarred from taking companynizance of the case.
for respondent No.
In the income tax assessment proceedings of the appellant for the assessment years 1949 50 and 1950 51, respondent No.
The Judgment of Gajendragadkar C.J., Wanchoo and Rajagopala Ayyangar JJ.
XI of 1922 hereinafter called the Act can be said to be a proceeding in any companyrt within the meaning of s. 195 1 b of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P.C., and so, he rejected the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.
If the Income tax Officer is a Court it necessarily follows that the Magistrate was number entitled to take companynizance of this offence except on the companyplaint of the Income tax Officer.
The High Court of Bombay was moved against the Presidency Magistrates order.
February 7, 1964.
In his evidence 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.
1142 of 1960.
The learned Presi dency Magistrate held that the Income tax Officer was number a Court within the meaning of s. 195 1 b , Cr.
He prayed for the issue of process against the said Mulji Manilal Kamdar, so that he might be dealt with according to law.
According to the appellant, the said statements were false to the knowledge of respondent No.
A Division Bench of the said High Court reversed the companyclusion of the Presidency Magistrate and held that the Income tax Officer was a Court within the meaning of s. 195 1 b , Cr.
The appellant Lalji Haridas and respondent No.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the Bombay High Court under Art.
452/S of 1959 in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanades, Bombay.
