1998 (7) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of fine of Rs. 250 in each case. Petitioner has now approached this Court under section 397, Cr. P.C. 2.. The case of the prosecution is that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in submitting the returns in form No. 3 for the period from April, 1992 to October, 1994. That is how, for each month, a separate case came to be filed, all the said cases, namely from C.C. Nos. 1 to 31 of 1995, having been disposed of by the learned Magistrate by a common judgment and order dated November 23, 1995, the criminal appeals concerned by a common judgment and order dated April 26, 1996 by the learned sessions Judge. 3.. Section 29(1)(g) of the Act, inter alia, provides that a person who fails to submit a statement as required by sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed had not been filed. Learned Magistrate as also the learned sessions Judge have failed to appreciate this stand taken by the defence and to examine as to whether the said stand stood probabilised. Failure to bestow attention to this aspect led to manifest illegality leading to miscarriage of justice. That needs to be interfered with in these revision petitions. 4.. The case of the prosecution was that, during the period concerned, the case of the petitioner stood transferred to the 33rd circle and that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the statement in form No. 3 to the said 33rd circle. What the petitioner stated in the course of examination under section 313, Cr. P.C. was that he had been submitting returns in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le. That means, that either 8th circle or some other circle continued to receive the returns of the petitioner for four months even after the file had been transferred to 33rd circle. Petitioner's contention that he had no knowledge of the change of his case from 8th circle to 33rd circle until he had received a notice from the 33rd circle, needs to be taken seriously. It was only in exhibit D1 that the 33rd circle for the first time, on October 14, 1994, informs the petitioner that he was required to submit returns from April, 1992 to October, 1994. Immediately, on December 21, 1994, petitioner seeks certain clarification as per exhibit D2 and he pointedly requests early reply to know the jurisdiction to file returns. By the endorsement da....