Jharkhand High Court
Satyaban Roy vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1123 of 2016
Satyaban Roy, alias Satyaban Singh, son of late Satyandra Kumar
Roy, Resident of Baramuri O.C.P. Mugma Area, E.C.L. P.O. and
P.S. Chirkunda, District, Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. C.P. Bhatia, S/o J.N. Bhatia, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. II
(2) MADA Building P.O. and P.S Dhanbad, district Dhanbad,
Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate
For the Income Tax : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Advocate
---
15/12.09.2024 Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his
arguments on the point of sentence.
3. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment
dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII
Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2016 whereby the appeal has been
dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted vide judgement dated
11.12.2015 by Special Judge Economic Offences Dhanbad in C.O.
case No. 48 of 2004 under section 277 of Income Tax Act and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay
fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default further sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Argument of the Petitioner.
4. The learned counsel during the course of argument has confined
only to the point of sentence and submitted that the case was instituted
as back as in the year 2004 and more than 20 years have elapsed. He
has also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for
some time during the pendency of this case. The learned counsel has
further submitted that considering the long-drawn criminal case which
has been faced by the petitioner, the sentence may be reduced to some
extent.
Argument of the Income Tax Department (Complainant)
5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Income Tax
Department, has opposed the prayer and submitted that under the
provisions of Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, when the amount
involved is more than Rs.25,000, there is a minimum sentence of 6
months.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that considering the nature
of offence by which a forged TDS certificate was utilized by the
petitioner and claimed refund which was amounting of Rs.35,425/-, no
sympathetic view be taken in favour of the petitioner. The learned
counsel has however not disputed that the case was instituted way
back in the year 2004.
Findings of this Court.
7. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering
the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the
prosecution case, the petitioner had filed false income tax return and
wrongly claimed refund of Rs. 35,425/- for the assessment year 2003-
04 and furnished TDS certificate and claimed deduction on account of
housing loan but such documents on which refund was claimed were
found to be forged and fabricated upon verification.
8. Consequently, a show cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner which was received by him on 30.11.2003 to which he did
not respond. The prosecution was launched and before the court, the
prosecution led both oral and documentary evidence to prove their
case but the defence did not lead any evidence, either oral or
documentary. Before the learned Trial Court, inter alia, the return in
SARAL form (Exhibit-2) and the show-cause notice issued by the
Income Tax Department (Exhibit-4) have been marked exhibits
without any objection from the side of the petitioner. The filing of
return is not in dispute. The petitioner, in the statement before the
court examination under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
has admitted that he had filed the return and also admitted that he
received the show cause notice (Exhibit 4) contained his signature.
9. This Court finds that the prosecution had proved the required
facts to hold the petitioner guilty of offence under section 277 of the
Income Tax Act and so far as mens rea i.e 'culpable mental state' is
concerned that is certainly covered under section 278 E of the Income
Tax Act which provides for a presumption regarding 'culpable mental
state' in the matter of prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961.
10. The learned court had scrutinized the materials on record and
recorded finding against the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty
under section 277 of the Income Tax Act.
11. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on
record and upheld the conviction and also considered the provisions of
section 278 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to presumption
of 'culpable mental state.' However, the sentence was reduced to 1
year.
12. This Court also finds that there are concurrent findings of the
learned courts after scrutinizing the materials on record and holding
the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax
Act. There is no illegality or perversity or any material irregularity
with regard to the conviction of the petitioner. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has also confined his arguments to the point of sentence.
13. The learned trial court had sentenced the petitioner for a period
of two years and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. So
far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the appellate court has
considered that the petitioner had faced the rigors of trial for more
than 12 years and modified the sentence to one year vide impugned
judgement dated 06.05.2016. The fine amount was sustained by the
learned appellate court.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the
fact that 20 years have already elapsed from the date of filing of the
complaint case, which is relating to assessment year 2003-2004, this
Court is of the considered view that the sentence of the petitioner is fit
to be further modified to secure the ends of justice and some fine
amount be enhanced.
15. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to 6
months and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The fine amount
be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the
date of communication of this judgement to the concerned trial court.
16. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount within
the stipulated time, the petitioner would serve the sentence as already
awarded by the learned appellate court. It is further directed that the
fine amount so deposited by the petitioner be remitted to the Income
Tax Department.
17. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid
modification of sentence.
18. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/-
