1980 (4) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... these seven cases, the learned Sessions judge, Bareilly, while maintaining the conviction of the opposite party No. 1, modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 1,000 only. The ITO, on whose complaint proceedings had begun in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed a revision in each case and it was contended that the modification of the sentence made by the learned sessions judge was illegal and against the mandatory provisions of law. It was pointed out that the minimum sentence of imprisonment would not be less than six months' rigorous imprisonment and it could be reduced only when there was some special or adequate reasons but in that case also the sentence was to be one of imprisonment and there could be no sentence of fine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o followed this law. He, how ever, held that the minimum sentence could be reduced as there were adequate and special reasons to the contrary. But this was not the law either on the date of offence. It is not disputed that the law applicable would be that which existed at the time the offence was committed. In the case of all these revisions, false returns were submitted prior to 1st April, 1964. The concealment was detected while dealing with the assessment year 1963-64, which dealt with the income for the financial year 1962-63 ending on March 31. The return in that case was filed on 27th September, 1963. All other returns, i.e., returns for 1957-58 to 1962-63, were naturally filed prior to this date. So the offences for filing false r....