The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to reduce a sentence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on special reasons and the time already undergone by the petitioner.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is to orders of conviction and sentence, dated 18-7-1983, and 19-7-1983, respectively, rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, as also order dated 30-11-1987, vide which Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused Mahender Kumar for an offence punishable under section 278 of Income Tax Act, 1961, but maintained the conviction and sentence for an offence punishable under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , and reduced the sentence from one year and six months to nine months.

2. Brief facts of the case reveal that a partnership concern known as M/s. Sat Narain Mahender Kumar at Tosham had three partners, namely, Mahender Kumar, Raj Kishan Gupta and Daropadi Devi. The accounts of this partnership firm were maintained by one Ram Kishan, Munim. The income tax return for the financial year 1976-77 was filed in the year 1977 by Mahender Kumar, partner, the documents accompanying the income-tax return were also signed by Mahender Kumar. Inasmuch as the concerned department was of the view that in the income-tax return aforesaid, the firm has concealed the total income to be shown in the return, it lodged a complaint against the firm, its three partners as also Ram Kishan, Munim. The complaint was lodged under sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), as also under sections 193 and 477-A of Indian Penal Code. To substantiate its case, the department examined two witnesses, namely, Uma Sharma, L.D.C, of the Income Tax Department as PW-1 and Rattan Lal, Income Tax Officer, as PW-2, who happened to be the complainant as well. It requires to be mentioned here that from the statement of the witnesses, it is clear that the firm is a partnership concern and it had concealed an amount of nearly, Rs. 13,000. The assessment was completed on 30-8-1976, as would be clear from the assessment order, Ex. P-3. The complaint aforesaid was lodged on 14-3-1977, against the firm, Mahender Kumar, Raj Kishan Gupta, Daropadi Devi and Ram Kishan, Munim under sections 277 and 278 of the Act, 1961, as also 193/477-A of Indian Penal Code. The charge came to be framed on 13-2-1980. It is pertinent to mention here that no charge was framed against the firm. Rather the charges were framed against its partners aforesaid and Ram Kishan-Munim under sections 277 and 278 of the Act, 1961, as also sections 193, 477-A read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Against this charge, Daropadi Devi filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which was accepted vide order, dated 16-11-1981. Insofar as Raj Kishan Gupta is concerned, he was acquitted in appeal preferred by him. So far as Ram Kishan, Munim is concerned, he died when his appeal was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge.

3. In the facts, referred to above, it is only Mahender Kumar, who is in revision against the orders, referred to above. Charge was framed against Mahender Kumar under sections 277 and 278 of the Act of 1961 as also 477-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. He was held guilty by the trial court under sections 277 and 278 of the Act, and was acquitted of the charge framed against him under sections 477-A and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months under section 277 of the Act, 1961, and one year under section 278 of the Act, 1961. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal filed by the present petitioner against the orders passed by the trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order, dated 30-11-1987, held that insofar as section 278 of the Act, 1961, is concerned, no case is made out against him but at the same time, he was held guilty under section 277 of the Act, 1961, but his sentence on the aforesaid count was reduced to nine months.

4. On the facts, as fully detailed above, Mr. Gupta, representing the pe