TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (9) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62-63. Consequently, the ITO, Arrah, issued a notice to the firm to show cause as to why the registration already granted to it should not be cancelled. The petitioner appeared before the ITO on the 1st of October, 1963, and made a statement that the application in the prescribed Form No. 12 for the continuance of the registration in the assessment year 1962-63 had been filed separately from the return and it was sent either by post or it was filed in the office of the ITO. The ITO rejected the plea taken by the petitioner and made assessment for the year in question on the basis as if the firm was an unregistered one. The partners of the firm filed an appeal before the AAC of Income-tax, Patna, against the assessment order of the ITO, but the appeal was dismissed by an order dated the 21st November, 1964, and the assessment order of the ITO was affirmed. The partners of the firm thereafter filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna Bench. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 8th December, 1965. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the ITO, Arrah, had gone to Dehri in the month of July, 1965, as the case of the firm for the assessment yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the mistake and did not press the application for making a reference to this court by the Tribunal. The prosecution alleged that the declaration (Ex. 10) was a forged and fabricated document which was brought into existence to support the false claim of the petitioner. The prosecution alleged further that the petitioner had used that document by obtaining a certified copy of the same and had filed the certified copy before the Tribunal. A complaint was, accordingly, filed by the ITO, Arrah, on 24th January, 1970, and the petitioner was summoned for trial. The petitioner denied the charges framed against him under ss. 193, 465 and 471 of the IPC. His defence was that the document was not forged or fabricated, that it did not bear his signature or writing; that the business of the firm was being looked after by his brother, Shankar Lal Saraogi ; that the petitioner had no knowledge about the recovery of the declaration form from the file of M/s. Jai Hind Talkies and that he had been a victim of official manipulation of the I.T. department. The petitioner also, of course, took the plea that the different offences for which he has been charged could not be tried together; that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le the complaint against the petitioner. Section 195(1)(b) provides, inter alia, that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under s. 193 of the IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which such court is subordinate. Learned counsel contends that the certified copy of the declaration form had been filed before the Tribunal and, therefore, it was the Tribunal or some other court to which the Tribunal was subordinate, which was competent to file a complaint against the petitioner. In my view, the argument is misconceived. The offence of fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used at any stage of a judicial proceeding is complete as soon as the fabrication is complete. Even if the judicial proceeding in which the fabricated document may be intended to be used may not have commenced, the offence is complete as soon as the document is fabricated and, therefore, the offence cannot be said to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court. To hold otherwise will mean that the offence will not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent alleged to be forged and not to a copy of it. Therefore, s. 195(1)(c) had no application to that case. In the instant case as well, it will be noticed that the alleged fabricated declaration form (Ex. 16) had not been produced before the Tribunal, instead a certified copy of the same (Ex. 17) was produced before it. The Supreme Court as well, in the case of Budhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan [1963] (2) Cri.LJ 698 ; [1963] 3 SCR 376 said (at p. 701 of Cri. LJ.) : " ........ What section 471 requires is the use as genuine of any document which is known or believed to be a forged document; it does not lay down that such use can only occur when the original itself is produced, for the section does not require the production of the original, Where, for example, under the rules, an attested copy would suffice, the production of an attested copy would, in our opinion, amount to use of the original document as genuine, if it is known or is believed to be a forged document. The difference between section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that while sec tion 195(1)(c) requires the production of the forged document itself in a court to ....