Tribunal as court under criminal procedure depends on express statutory declaration; sanction protection did not bar prosecution here.

After the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a tribunal is treated as a court for Section 195 only if the statute creating it expressly declares that status for that purpose; absent such declaration, the sanction protection does not apply. The Madras High Court distinguished the earlier Supreme Court view under the prior procedural regime and noted that the amendment to Section 196(2) did not operate retrospectively. It also noted that the complaint involved offences under the Income-tax Act, with Section 279A treating such offences as non-cognizable, and the criminal proceedings were therefore not liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Income-tax Officer could be treated as a court for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether sanction under Section 196(2) of that Code was necessary for prosecution for offences arising out of alleged fabrication of documents and false returns in income-tax assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The proceedings before the Income-tax Officer were judicial proceedings for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code, but the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 introduced a specific requirement in Section 195(3) that a tribunal would be treated as a court only if the statute constituting it declared it to be a court for the purposes of that section. The Income-tax Act did not contain such a declaration. The earlier Supreme Court decision treating assessment proceedings as proceedings in a court was distinguished on the footing that it was rendered under the earlier procedural regime. The court also held that the later amendment to Section 196(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not operate retrospectively. In addition, the complaint included offences under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Section 279A treated such offences as non-cognizable.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer was not a court within Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and sanction under Section 196(2) was not required on the facts. The prosecution was therefore maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were not liable to be quashed, and the petitioners obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: After the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a tribunal or authority can be treated as a court for Section 195 only if the statute constituting it expressly declares it to be a court for that purpose; absent such declaration, the protection requiring sanction does not apply.

---