Proceedings for assessment also include prosecution.

The petitioner in all these cases is the same. They are dealt with together as the points raised are substantially the same.

The revision petitioner is a cine actor. Four complaints were filed against him by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle -6, Madras, alleging that he had been systematically filing false returns of his income and had omitted to give true information regarding his professional earnings liable to be taxed from the year, 1957, with a view to evade payment of tax and he had deliberately concealed material particulars of his income in spite of notices having been issued by the Department to file a true and correct statement of income. The first three complaints relating to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 respectively were filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and under section 177, Indian Penal Code. The fourth complaint which is in respect of the assessment year, 1961-62 was filed under section 277 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 and under section 177, Indian Penal Code.

The revision petitioner raised preliminary objection before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in respect of the first three complaints on the grounds that the complaint under section 177, Indian Penal Code, was not maintainable in law as the operation of section 177, Indian Penal Code, was excluded to cases relating to income-tax matters, that the prosecution under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 will also not apply as it was repealed by the Income-tax Act of 1961 and that the sanction given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was invalid.

In the fourth complaint, an additional ground was taken that section 277 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 is invalid and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and in excess of the administrative competence and opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. .

The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate dismissed the petitions holding that the points of law raised by the petitioner were such that could be agitated in the course of trial. He, therefore, thought it unnecessary to give any finding on the points raised by the petitioner.

In respect of the first three complaints, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended, firstly, that the complaint under section 177, Indian Penal Code is incompetent as it must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed by the enactment of section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and secondly, the prosecution under section 52 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 is also incompetent as the Income-tax Act of 1961 repealed the earlier Act of 1922 and the proceedings in respect of prosecutions under the Income-tax Act of 1922 were not saved by the repealing Act of 1961. In respect of the fourth complaint, he further contended that section 277 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 is ultra vires offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

To appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of the first three complaints, it will be necessary to note the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act of 1922.

Section 177, Indian Penal Code, is as follows:

"Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes as true, information on the subject which he knows or has been reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both....."

Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is as follows:

"If a person makes a statement in a verification mentioned in section 19-A or section 20-A or section 21 or section 22 or sub-section (2) of section 26-A or sub-section (3) of section 30 or sub-section (3) of section 33, or furnishes a certificate under sub-section (9) of section 18, which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he