Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2516 2002 SLD 2516 (2002) 256 ITR 376
Patna High Court

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Dipesh Chandak

v.

Union of India

Law:

Section:

Section 277, read with section 278, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Offences and prosecution - False statement in verification, etc. - Assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97 - During investigation of various criminal cases filed by CBI against assessee in connection with misappropriation of funds of State exchequer, assessee had made a confessional statement before Special CBI Judge under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby he had admitted his dubious role in misappropriation of funds and fraudulent withdrawals from State exchequer during period from 1987 to 1994 against fake bills of supply to Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar, in connivance with officials of said department - Special Judge had granted him pardon on condition of his making full and true disclosure - Cases were pending for trial - During assessment proceedings for assessment year under consideration, returns were found to be false in light of assessee's confessional statement in criminal cases and, therefore, revenue initiated prosecution under sections 277 and 278 - Assessee claimed immunity on ground of pardon - Whether examination of an approver as a witness of prosecution during trial is essential and approver has to fulfil his terms of pardon and until approver fulfils all terms of pardon and until trial of all concerned cases is concluded and approver is examined as a witness of prosecution during trial of cases, he continues to have his position as an accused - Held, yes - Whether assessee could not claim immunity from prosecution for any offence as he could be put back to his position as an accused, if he did not fulfil all terms and conditions of his pardon and his allowing to be an approver and, therefore, prosecution under sections 277 and 278 was not to be quashed - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was a supplier of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar, who was the accused in different cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for misappropriation of funds of the Animal Husbandry Department. During investigation of the criminal cases, he made a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he had admitted his…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492