Back
1983 Supreme(MP) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
G.P. SINGH, J
Daljeet Singh and Anr.
Versus
Income-Tax Officer and Anr.
Criminal Revision No. 55 of 1980
Decided On: 11.04.1983
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.P. Gupta, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.C. Mukati and S.S. Maheshwari, Advs.
The court held that the applicants had made false documents with intent to defraud the ITO, had deceived the ITO with the intent to commit fraud, and that the pronotes were fabricated and were used during the course of judicial proceedings.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 193 AND 467, IPC - FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS - INTENT TO DEFRAUD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 193, 24, 25, 463 AND 464, IPC - DISTINCTION BETWEEN DECEIVING AND DEFRAUDING - ESSENCE OF FORGERY - ELEMENTS OF DEFRAUDING - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO FACTS - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, partners in a firm, submitted a balance sheet showing a creditor, Sureshchandra Sakorikar, as owing them Rs. 17,000. During an inquiry by the ITO, the applicants produced pronotes purporting to be executed by them and attested by one of them, showing Sakorikar as the lender of the sums. The stamp expert found that the revenue stamps affixed on the pronotes were first printed on a date subsequent to the dates on which the pronotes were purported to be executed. The ITO passed an assessment order holding that the pronotes were fabricated to support a false claim. The applicants were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 193 and 467, IPC, and were convicted and sentenced by the trial court. On appeal, the Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the convictions under Sections 193 and 467, IPC, but reducing the sentence. The applicants filed a revision petition challenging their convictions and sentences.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicants had made false documents with intent to defraud the ITO into believing that they were executed on the dates on which they were purported to have been made. The court found that the applicants had deceived the ITO with the intent to commit fraud, as they had made false representations in writing to obtain a benefit for their firm by paying less Income Tax. The court also held that the pronotes were fabricated and were used during the course of judicial proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicants had made false documents with intent to defraud the ITO? 2. Whether the applicants had deceived the ITO with the intent to commit fraud? 3. Whether the pronotes were fabricated and were used during the course of judicial proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the applicants had made false documents with intent to defraud the ITO, as they had made false representations in writing to obtain a benefit for their firm by paying less Income Tax. The court relied on the definition of 'dishonestly' under Section 24 of the IPC and the definition of 'fraudulently' under Section 25 of the IPC to hold that the applicants had acted with intent to defraud. 2. The court held that the applicants had deceived the ITO with the intent to commit fraud, as they had made false representations in writing to obtain a benefit for their firm by paying less Income Tax. The court relied on the definition of 'defraud' in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration to hold that the applicants had caused injury to the I.T. Department by their actions. 3. The court held that the pronotes were fabricated and were used during the course of judicial proceedings, as they were false documents that were made to appear as genuine and were used during the course of an inquiry by the ITO.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the convictions and sentences for the offences punishable under Sections 193 and 467, IPC.
C.P. Singh, J
1. This revision application aims at setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1979, only partly allowing the applicants' appeal, though maintaining their convictions under Sections 193 and 467, Indian Penal Code, reducing the sentence till the raising of the court on each count but enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 3,000 failing the payment of which rigorous imprisonment for two years, instead of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count with a direction for the substantive sentences to run concurrently and in the event of non-payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. There is a firm called "M/s. Satya Trading Corporation" of which, among others, the applicants are partners. This firm for the year 1972-73 submitted its balance-sheet showing that the co-accused Sureshchandra Sakorikar (since acquitted), was its (firm's) creditor in a sum of Rs. 17,000. Mr. Nazirsingh (P. W. 1), the ITO, with regard to this item of Rs. 17,000, conducted an inquiry during the course of which the pronotes (Exts. P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12) purporting to be executed on July 3, 1972, July 10, 1972, July 13, 1972 (with overwriting) and June 12, 1974, for Rs. 2,000, Rs. 5,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 17,000, respectively, all bearing similar revenue stamps with the exception of one, by the applicant, Daljeet Singh, and attested by the applicant, Rasjeet Singh, showing the said Sureshchandra Sakorikar as the lender of those sums to the firm, were produced before him. These applicants, among others, verified the returns to be true. These pronotes were sent to the stamp expert, Indian Security Press, Nasik, who found that the revenue stamps affixed on Exts. P-9, P-10, P-11 and P-12 were first printed on March 19, 1975, with the exception of one 10 P. stamp on the pronote, Ex. P-12, which was first printed on July 25, 1974.
3. The ITO after due inquiry passed an assessment order, that the pro-notes (Exts. P-9, P-10 and P-11) were all fabricated only to support a false claim that Rs. 17,000 had been borrowed from Sureshchandra Sakorikar, who was not in a position to lend that amount. The applicant, Daljeet Singh, preferred an appeal and the AAC, observing that it was for (the said) Sakorikar to explain the source of that amount or to suffer the consequences, allowed the applicant Daljeet Singh's appeal setting aside the ITO's order.
4. The applicants along with others were prosecuted, among others, for offences punishable under Sections 193 and 467, Indian Penal Code, before the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, who acquitted the co-accused altogether and also the applicants of other offences (punishable under Section 420/511 and 468, IPC, and Sections 277 and 278B of the I.T. Act), but finding them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 467, IPC, sentenced them, from which the applicants appealed, but only partly successfully, to the Sessions Judge, to which a detailed reference has already been made in the opening paragraph of this order.
5. The contention by the learned counsel for the applicants is that if their defence and explanation are given weight, they could not have been convicted of the two offences and punished for them.
6. The defence of the applicants was that the ITO during the inquiry of the assessment proceedings would often call Daljeet Singh, in spite of the consolidated pronote (Ex. P-12) covering the entire amount borrowed pursuant to the cancellation of the earlier pronotes, in sums of Rs. 2,000, Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 10,000 respectively, and insist on him to produce before him the discharged (cancelled) promissory notes. He, therefore, on the advice of his father brought three promissory notes (Exts. P-9, P-10 and P-11) which he executed and got attested by the applicant, Rasjeet Singh, and got them produced by his counsel, Mr. Airen, before the ITO. The applicants while admitting that t
