An Income-tax Officer conducting assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1922, is deemed a Revenue Court under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, enabling prosecution for offenses committed during such proceedings.

1. The facts giving rise to this Criminal revision application briefly are that the Income - tax Officer, Jamnagar, was holding proceedings under S.23 of the Income - tax Act, 1922, in regard to the assessment of the income of the second respondent, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. During the course of those proceedings the Income - tax Officer, Jamnagar, came to Bombay and examined the petitioner on oath. The respondent's case is that the petitioner then made statement, which to the knowledge of the petitioner, were false. He, therefore, filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S.193 IPC, in the Court of Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the complaint by the petitioner. It was contended by him that an income - tax Officer is a Revenue Court within the meaning of clause (b) in Sub-sec. (1) of S.195 Criminal P. C. and that consequently the Court could not take cognizance of any offence under S.193 IPC alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the course of proceedings before the Income - tax Officer, except on a complaint in writing by the Income - tax Officer or of some other authority to whom he was subordinate. This objection was overruled and the learned Magistrate rejected the application made by the petitioner, in which he had raised this preliminary objection. Against the order made by him the present application has been made.

2. The question, which we have to determine, is whether an Income - tax Officer, while holding proceedings under S.23 of the Indian Income - tax Act, is a Court within the meaning of clause (b) in Sub-sec. (1) of S.195 Criminal P. C. The word "Court" is not defined in the Code. S.3 of the Indian Evidence Act, defines "Court" as including all Judges and Magistrates and all persons except arbitrators legally authorised to take evidence. This definition has been held to be not exhaustive but framed only for the purposes of the Evidence Act and is not to be extended beyond its legitimate scope; see Queen Empress v. Tulja , ILR (12) Bom. 36, and Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain , 1955 (2) SCR 955 at 961 : ((S) AIR 1956 SC 66 at p. 69). As pointed out by Fry, L. J. in Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson, (1892) 1 QB 431, there are many Courts which, though not Courts of Justice, are nevertheless Courts according to law. The word "Court" does not, therefore, have a uniform meaning in all the enactmants. The question whether a particular tribunal is a Court must, therefore, be decided in each case having regard to the provisions of the enactment under which that tribunal is constituted.

3. S.195(1) (b) provides as follows :
"(1). No Court shall take cognizance xx xx (b) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, S.193, S.194, S.195, S.196, S.199, S.200, S.205, S.206, S.207, S.208, S.209, S.210, S.211 and S.228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed, in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate." Sub-section (2) of S.195 is in the following terms :
"(2). In clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-sec. (1), the terms 'Court' includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1877."
The object of this section is to protect persons from being harassed by baseless and vexatious prosecutions at the instance of individuals actuated by malice, illwill or motives of revenge and to save the time of the Courts from being wasted by frivolous and needless prosec