TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the revision before the Court of Sessions against the order granting benefit of probation was maintainable; (ii) whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code was available in respect of an offence under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act.
Issue (i): whether the revision before the Court of Sessions against the order granting benefit of probation was maintainable.
Analysis: The revisional challenge before the Sessions Court was examined in light of the earlier Division Bench view that an appeal against an order under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act lay only to the High Court. On that basis, the Sessions Court was held to have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and its interference with the sentence order was not justified.
Conclusion: The revision before the Court of Sessions was not maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act and section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code was available in respect of an offence under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The Court applied section 292A of the Income-tax Act and held that, for persons convicted under the Act, the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code is barred unless the offender is below the prescribed age. Since the trial court had extended probation in disregard of that statutory bar, the order was treated as illegal and liable to be corrected in exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent perpetuation of illegality.
Conclusion: The benefit of probation was not available, and the sentence order had to be reconsidered in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by setting aside the continuance of the illegal probationary relief and directing the trial court to rehear the parties on sentence and pass appropriate orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly excludes probationary relief for a class of offences, the court cannot sustain an order granting such relief, and inherent or revisional jurisdiction may be used to prevent an illegal sentence order from being perpetuated.
TaxTMI 
