Back
1973 Supreme(Del) 200
High Court Of Delhi
GULAB CHAND SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
H.P.SHARMA ETC - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 116 of 1971
Decided On : 08/27/1973
A.N.Mulla, Baldev Raj Chadha, D.C.SINGHANIA, K.L.Arora
The principle of res judicata applies equally to civil and criminal proceedings, and the findings of law in a previous civil proceeding should act as res judicata in a subsequent criminal proceeding between the same parties.
Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - INCOME TAX - CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS - QUASHING - ISSUE ESTOPPEL - FINDINGS OF LAW IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION - BINDING IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - DOUBLE JEOPARDY - PENALTY AND PROSECUTION - SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sharma, claimed a deduction for the payment of Rs. 18,000.00 allegedly made to M/s. Modern Sanitation for electrical and sanitary supervising charges during the relevant year. The Income-Tax Officer disallowed the deduction and imposed a penalty on the petitioner for making a false return. Two identical complaints were filed against the petitioner - one by the Income-Tax Officer and the other by the Commissioner of Income-Tax - for offenses punishable under sections 277, 193, 467, and 471 of the Income-Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the complaints, but it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The petitioner then filed two petitions under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the complaints.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the decision of the Division Bench in the writ petition acted as res judicata, barring the petitioner from raising the same contentions in the present petitions. The Court observed that the principle of res judicata is based on public policy and private justice and applies equally to civil and criminal proceedings. The Court further held that the findings of law in the writ petition, being based on admitted facts, would operate as an issue estoppel in the present petitions. The Court also rejected the petitioner's other objections, including the contention that the complaints were not accompanied by documents specified in section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, that the complainants were not examined by the Magistrate, and that the petitioner could not be prosecuted for the same offenses under both the Income-Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the writ petition acted as res judicata, barring the petitioner from raising the same contentions in the present petitions. 2. Whether the findings of law in the writ petition operated as an issue estoppel in the present petitions. 3. Whether the complaints were required to be accompanied by documents specified in section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Whether the complainants were required to be examined by the Magistrate. 5. Whether the petitioner could be prosecuted for the same offenses under both the Income-Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata is based on public policy and private justice and applies equally to civil and criminal proceedings. 2. The findings of law in a previous civil proceeding should act as res judicata in a subsequent criminal proceeding between the same parties. 3. Compliance with section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the filing of documents and giving copies of the same to the accused is not necessary when the accused is being prosecuted on a complaint and not on a police report. 4. Public servants acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties are exempted from personal examination by the Magistrate under section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. There is no legal bar to the prosecution of an accused for the same offenses under both the Income-Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code in view of section 26 of the General Clauses Act.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitions under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, holding that the complaints against the petitioner could not be quashed.
( 1 ) THESE two petitions under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code have been referred to the Division Bench mainly to consider the question whether the previous decision between the parties in C. W. 189-D/1965 acts as res judicata barring the petitioner from raising in these petitions those contentions which have been aiready decided against him in the writ petition.
( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Sharma in his return under the Income-Tax Act 1922 for the assessment year 1959- 60 claimed deduction for the payment of a sum of Rs. 18,000. 00 allegediy made to M/s. Modem Sanitation for electrical and sanitary supervising charges during the relevant year. On enquiry, the lncome-Tax Officer was of the view that the alleged payee did not exist at ail and no such payment had been made by the petitioner. Not only the petitioner s daim to the deduction was disallowed in the assessment but two further proceedings were taken against the petitioner under the Income-Tax Act 1961, which had in the meanwhile corne into force. Firstly, a penalty was imposed on the petitioner for having made a false rctum under section 274 read with sections 271 and 273 of the Income-Tax Act 1961. Secondiy, two identical complaints were filed against the petitioner-one by the Income-Tax Officer and the other by the Commissioner of Incometax for having committed offences punishable under (l) section 277 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 making a false statement which the petitioner knew to be false or did not believe to be true), (2) section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding) and (3) sections 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code (forging a document and using it as genuine ).
( 3 ) IN the proceedings for imposition of penalty under the Incometax Act 1922 the petitioner has paid the penalty but his appeal against it is said to be still pending. To checkmate the complaints filed against him, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 189-D/1965 praying that the complainants (the Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-Tax) be restrained from pursu ng the said complaints pending before a Magistrate on the grounds that section 277 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 could not apply to the alleged offence committed by the petitioner relating to the assessment year 1959-60 and the income-tax authorities could not resort to both the proceedings against the petitioner namely (l) imposition of penalty and (2) filing of complaints inasmuch as this would be in violation of Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of this court dismissed the writ petition holding that:- (l) in view of section 297 (2) (b) of the Income-tax Act 1961 the assessment of the petitioner had to be made in accordance with the procedure specified in the Income-Tax Act 1961 inasmuch as the retum for the assessment year 1959-60 had been iiled by the petitioner on 7-8-1962 i. e. after the commencement of the Income-Tax Act 1961, (2) section 277 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 was applicable to a false statement made in a retum filed on 7-8-1962 and (3) a person can be penalised under section 271 of the Income-Tax Act 1961 and can aiso be prosecuted for an offence in respect of the same facts.
( 4 ) THOUGH the complaints against the petitioner had been filed as early as on 31-3-1965, they could not be proceeded with till the dismissal of the writ petition on 10-9-1969 in view of the stay order which had been issued by this court. Before the complaints could proceed thereafter, the petitioner has now filed th se two petitions under section 5 61-A Criminal Procedure Code on 7-10-1971 praying that the two complaints made against him be quashed on the following grounds:- (1) Two identical complaints one by the Income-Tax Officer and the other by the Commissioner of Income-Tax in respect of same offences could not be maintained against the petitioner. (2) The complaints were not accompanied by documents specified in
