Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: In this appeal, by special leave, on behalf of the appellant, the fifth accused in Special Case No. 9 of 1963, in the Court of the Special Judge for Greater Bombay, Mr. A. S. R. Chari, learned counsel, challenges the order, dated November 24, 1965, passed by the High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Revision Application No. 232 of 1965.

2. There are five accused, in Special Case No. 9 of 1963. The appellant, and accused No. 4, are partners of an industrial concern, known as Premier Industries . Accused No. 1 is an Income-tax Consultant, and accused Nos. 2 and 3, are clerks, in the Income-tax Department. The substance of the prosecution case, against these five accused, is that they formed a conspiracy, to cheat the income-tax authorities, in respect of the income-tax assessments, of the Premier Industries, for the assessment year 1960-61, and, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, committed offences, under S. 420 I. P. C., and S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947), (hereinafter called the Act). They have also been charged with an offence, under S. 468 I. P. C., alleged to have been committed, by them, in furtherance of the said conspiracy.

3. The allegations, relating to the commission of the offence, under S. 420 I. P. C., is comprised in charge No. 2.That charge ends up by saying that, by the various acts mentioned therein, the appellant, along with accused No. 1, who is the Income-tax Practitioner, and accused No. 4, dishonestly or fraudulently induced the income-tax authorities and obtained assessment order for less income-tax than due by accused Nos. 4 and 5, and that, all the three of them, have committed an offence, under S. 420, I. P. C. It is not necessary to refer to the other charges.

4. The appellant raised an objection, to the framing of a charge, under S. 420 I. P.C. According to him the charge should really have been framed under S. 417, on the ground that the assessment order, in this case, is not property .He also raised an objection, that the assessment order, is not valuable security .

5. The Special Judge, by his order, dated February 3, 1965, rejected the preliminary objections, raised by the appellant. He field that the assessment order was property , and that it was also valuable security . Therefore, he held that the charge, framed under S. 420 I.P. C., was correct. There were certain other objections, raised by the appellant, viz., that sanction had not been obtained, under S. 196-A Cr. P. C., that where the offence itself was alleged to have been committed, in pursuance of the conspiracy, and was the subject matter of charge, no charge of conspiracy could still be maintained, and that the period of conspiracy had been artificially fixed, in the charge. These objections have also been overruled by the Special Judge.

6. The appellant carried the matter, in revision, before the High Court of Bombay. The learned Judge, by his order, dated November 24, 1965, which is under attack, has confirmed the order of the Special Judge. Here again, the High Court has taken the view that the assessment order is property and it is also valuable security , under S. 30, I. P.C.The High Court is further of the view that the allegations, contained in the material charge, do prima facie disclose an offence, under S. 420 I. P. C. Certain other objections, raised before the High Court, were also negatived.

7. Mr. A. S. R. Chari, learned counsel for the appellant, has again reiterated the same objections. Except for the question, relating to the charge framed under S. 420 I. P. C., we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion, regarding the other points, raised by Mr. Chari. If any other objections are available to the appellant, or any other accused, he or they, will be perfectly entitled to raise the same, during the course of the trial.

8. The argument, regarding the invalidity of the charge, framed under S. 420, runs as follows. The essenti