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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Delhi courts had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint alleging offences under section 277 and section 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Indian Penal Code, when the false estimates were delivered at Kanpur.
Analysis: The offence under section 277 is complete when the false account or statement is delivered, and the offence under section 278 is complete when the abetment is made. Applying section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every offence is ordinarily triable by the court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Since the impugned estimates were delivered at Kanpur and the alleged abetment also took place there, the offences were committed at Kanpur. The completion of assessment or penalty proceedings at Delhi did not determine the place of commission of the offences, and convenience could not override the territorial rule.
Conclusion: The Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to try the complaint, and the impugned order was liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The complaint was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur, for decision in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: An offence under section 277 or section 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is triable at the place where the false statement is delivered or the abetment occurs, and not at the place where assessment or penalty proceedings are later taken.