Income-tax Officer is not a court under criminal procedure, so section 340 complaint is not a prerequisite for prosecution.

An Income-tax Officer, though conducting judicial proceedings, is not a "court" for the purposes of sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless statute expressly declares him to be one. The special complaint procedure under section 340 applies only to offences covered by section 195 and requires a court's preliminary satisfaction that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Since an Income-tax Officer is not a revenue court within those provisions, a prior complaint under section 340 is not a condition precedent to prosecution for offences connected with such proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Income-tax Officer is a "court" for the purposes of sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, so that a prior complaint following the procedure under section 340 is necessary before prosecuting offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to offences referred to in section 195 and requires the court, after such preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary, to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate complaint proceedings. The meaning of "court" in section 195 extends to civil, revenue or criminal courts and includes only such tribunals as are declared by statute to be courts for that purpose. Relying on the governing Supreme Court authority, the judgment holds that proceedings before an Income-tax Officer may be judicial proceedings, but the officer does not become a revenue court within sections 195 and 340. The earlier procedural provisions under the old Code did not alter that position, and the same reasoning applies to the corresponding provision in the 1973 Code.

Conclusion: An Income-tax Officer is not a court for the purposes of sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no prior complaint under section 340 was required before launching the prosecution. The contention of the petitioner failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held maintainable and the petition for quashing was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An Income-tax Officer, though conducting judicial proceedings, is not a court within section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the statute expressly declares him to be one; therefore, the special complaint procedure under section 340 is not a condition precedent to prosecution for offences connected with those proceedings.

---