Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: (On behalf of himself and Wanchoo and Ayyangar JJ.)

The short question of law which arises for our decision in the present appeal is whether the proceeding before an Income-tax Officer under S. 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (No. XI of 1922) (hereinafter called the Act) can be said to be a proceeding in any court within the meaning of S. 195 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This question arises in this way. The appellant Lalji Haridas and respondent No. 2 Mulji Manilal Kamdar are businessmen and they carry on their business in Jamnagar and Bombay respectively. They have known each other for several years past in the course of their ordinary business activities. In the income-tax assessment proceedings of the appellant for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 respondent No. 2 gave evidence on oath before the Income-tax Officer, Ward A, Jamnagar on December, 4, 1958. 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 and Co. at Jamnagar. According to the appellant, the said statements were false to the knowledge of respondent No. 2 and were made by him to mi