TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawals from the State Exchequer by issuing fake bills for supplies never made to the Animal Husbandry Department. The appellant has been, on August 28, 1998, granted a pardon by the Special Judge, CBI, on the condition that he makes a full and complete disclosure. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Patna, issued a show cause notice to the appellant as to why prosecution should not be initiated against him, under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, for having filed false returns of income-tax. The appellant replied to the show cause notices, inter alia, stating that he has been granted a pardon under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y virtue of the pardon no prosecution could have been launched against the appellant under these sections. Mr. Lahoty relied upon the case of Bipin Behari Sarkar v. State of West Bengal reported in [1959] SCR 1324, wherein it has been held as follows: "Section 339(1) of the Code provides that 'where a pardon has been tendered under section 337 or section 338, and the public prosecutor certifies that in his opinion any person who has accepted such tender has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, or for any other offence of which he appears to have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered, if the Public Prosecutor certifies that in his opinion he has, either wilfully concealed anything essential or had given false evidence and had not complied with the condition on which the tender was made." Relying on this case, Mr. Lahoty submitted that the High Court was not right in stating that as yet the appellant was an accused. He submitted that the pardon would continue to operate unless and until it has been revoked under section 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Lahoty also relied upon the case of State v. Hiralal G. Kothari reported in [1960] 2 SCR 355, wherein it has been held that the person to whom pardon is tendered is expected to state the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en this act. In this case, it has also been pointed out that if, however, he had made disclosure in respect of some other felony which was not connected with the felony for which he has been prosecuted, even though that would not be covered by the pardon, the court should recommend to the prosecution not to proceed against him in respect of that other offence. Mr. Lahoty also relied upon the case of State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Prem Raj reported in [2003] 7 SCC 121, wherein this court has discussed the power of pardon and the power to commute sentence. This authority, in our view, is of no relevance to the question in issue. Mr. Lahoty submitted that the pardon must necessarily mean that no prosecution can be based in respect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that even if there was a conflict, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, being a special and later enactment, section 64 would prevail. It was held that evidence could be given by the accused on the basis of the immunity granted under section 64. In our view, the High Court was not correct in concluding that until evidence has been given by the appellant the pardon could not operate. However, the fact remains that under section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the pardon is granted in respect of the offence for which he had been charged as an accused. Of course, a pardon need not be only in respect of an offence under the Indian Penal Code. A person may be charged, in respect of the same transaction or act, under....