Mens rea is essential for false verification offences in income-tax returns; mere filing of a false statement is insufficient.

False verification in income-tax returns attracts liability only where the prosecution proves that the accused made the statement knowing, believing, or not believing it to be true. On the facts, the returns were filed through advocates on instructions from the accountants, the accused was not personally present, and the surrounding circumstances did not show a deliberate false declaration. Mere submission of a verified return containing a false statement was held insufficient by itself to establish the offence. As the necessary mens rea or knowledge of falsity was not proved, the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether filing two returns with allegedly false verifications for the same assessment year constituted an offence under section 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 in the absence of proof that the accused knew or believed the statements to be false.

Analysis: The essential ingredients of the offence were the making of a false statement in a verification and proof that the accused knew, believed, or did not believe the statement to be true. The evidence showed that the returns were filed through advocates on the instruction of the accountants of the respective firms, that the accused was not personally present when they were filed, and that the circumstances of filing were explained. The Court found no material to establish a deliberate or intentional false declaration or any guilty mind, and accepted the trial court's view that mere submission of a verified return containing a false statement does not by itself constitute the offence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the necessary mens rea or knowledge of falsity, so the acquittal was upheld and the appeal failed.

---