Successor officer prosecution and forged declarations: assessment acceptance did not bar criminal action on prima facie false-document evidence.

A successor Income-tax Officer may continue a prosecution started under prior authorisation because the proceeding is treated as one of office, not of the individual; the objection that fresh authorisation was required was rejected. Acceptance of an assessment in appeal does not bar criminal prosecution where independent material shows forged declarations, false supporting forms, and fictitious depositors. On that factual basis, the court held that a prima facie case existed for conspiracy, forgery, use of forged or false documents, and offences under the Income-tax Act, so the discharge order could not stand and the matter was remitted for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint filed by the successor Income-tax Officer was invalid for want of fresh authorisation after the original authorised officer was transferred or ceased to hold office; (ii) Whether acceptance of the assessment in appeal barred prosecution where the investigation disclosed forged declarations and fictitious depositors.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint filed by the successor Income-tax Officer was invalid for want of fresh authorisation after the original authorised officer was transferred or ceased to hold office.

Analysis: The initial authorisation was granted to the named Income-tax Officer, who in fact filed the complaint. The subsequent substitution of another officer did not destroy the complaint, because the office, and not the individual, was the relevant complainant for the proceeding. Section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 recognises succession of functionaries, and the successor was entitled to continue the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was not invalid on the ground of want of authorisation, and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether acceptance of the assessment in appeal barred prosecution where the investigation disclosed forged declarations and fictitious depositors.

Analysis: The appellate acceptance of the assessment order did not conclude the question whether the declarations and supporting forms were genuine. The materials collected by the income-tax authorities, including examinations of the alleged depositors, indicated that signatures were denied in several cases and that some depositors were fictitious. Those facts disclosed a prima facie case of offences involving conspiracy, forgery, use of forged or false documents, and offences under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: Prosecution was not barred, and the discharge order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the discharge orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A successor in office may continue a prosecution instituted under prior authorisation, and acceptance of an assessment does not preclude criminal prosecution where independent material discloses a prima facie case of forgery or use of false documents.

---