Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence and in the absence of mens rea, the accused cannot be convicted.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. Mohanty, J. - The accused-respondent was charged u/s 52 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (which is almost in identical terms with Section 277 of the I.T. Act, 1961), and was tried in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. He was acquitted by the trial court. This appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the C.J.M., Cuttack.

2. The accused-respondent was an assessee under the I.T. Act. He submitted a return (Ex. 1) to the ITO, Cuttack, for the assessment year 1958-59, on February 27, 1959, showing an income of Rs. 4,319.48 under the head "Business" which comprised his income out of his share in M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack. The return was verified as required under the I.T. Act. The accused had disclosed that he had 1/3rd share in M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack, and had no other source of income. The assessment was completed by the ITO on February 28, 1959, on the relief that no other income had actually accrued to the accused. The accused had furnished another return (Ex. 2) of his income to the ITO, Cuttack, for the very same assessment year on February 13, 1959, showing an income of Rs. 5,160 under the head "Business". This income, according to him, was derived from the sale of motor vehicles and spare parts in his proprietary business establishment, M/s. Hindustan Automobiles, Berhampur. He had made a statement in the verification furnished in the above return that he had no other income except the aforesaid source during the relevant assessment year. The ITO completed the assessment in good faith believing the version of the accused. It is alleged that by submitting two returns the accused had made false statements, knowing or believing the same to be false with a view to avoid payment of lawful tax. It is also alleged that the accused deliberately suppressed the fact that two separate returns were filed by him and thereby succeeded in getting his false declarations accepted and acted upon by the ITO leading to two separate assessments by two different assessing officers. To avoid detection of the fraud committed by him the accused had engaged separate advocates for each case. It is alleged that if the true state of affairs had been disclosed and if the income from all the sources had been combined in one return as per the provisions of law, the accused would have been liable to pay substantially higher Income Tax and interest thereon for the said assessment year. In February, 1970, the ITO detected the alleged fraud and issued summons u/s 131 of the 1961 Act. The statement of the accused and his two advocates were recorded on oath. After obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, the complaint was filed by the ITO, Cuttack (P.W. 1), on January 25, 1974, alleging the accused to have committed offences u/s 52 of the 1922 Act and under various sections of the IPC. The court took cognizance of the offence u/s 52 of the 1922 Act and summoned the accused to stand his trial.

3. The plea of the accused was that during the relevant period he had his office at Calcutta. His brother, who was the partner of M/s. Consolidated Construction Co., Cuttack, died suddenly whereafter he was taken as one of the partners of the firm. The income of the firm was to be paid to the family members of the accused who were staying at Cuttack. So the accused had no knowledge of the income derived from the said firm. He was under the bona fide impression that separate returns had to be filed in respect of the incomes derived from the two business establishments. He used to put his signature on the blank form of return under the verification which was subsequently filled up and filed by the accountants of the firms through the lawyers. He had no intention of making any false statement nor had he concealed his income. After the department objected to the filing of two separate returns, the accused submitted a consolidated return in respect of the i