TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1440
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt : By Sri. S. Annamalai, Advocate for Respondent No.1) By Sri G S Nagharish, Advocate for R1 & R3 Sri G.R. Srinivas, Advocate for R2) By Sri Chandrashekara K, Advocate. JUDGMENT PER SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR J, 1. The Income Tax Department has filed these appeals under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. The details of these appeals are as under: Sl.No Crl Appeal (H.C) Trial Court name C.C.NO. with judgment Date Offence Sentence 1 1339/2020 Spl. Court for economic offences at Bengaluru 148/2018 dtd. 19/10/2019 Sec 276 B R/w 278B of I.T Act. 1961 with Rule 30 25,000/- 2 925/2021 Same 147/2018 Dtd. 19/10/2019 Same 25,000/- 3 950/2021 Same 149/2018 dtd. 19/10/2019 Sec 276B 25,000/- 4 954/2021 Same 101/2018 dtd. 16/11/2019 Sec 276 B R/w 278B of I.T Act. 1961 with Rule 30 20,000/- 5 1207/2021 Same 74/2019 dtd. 19/12/2020 Sec 276B 20,000/- 6 1222/2021 Same 68/2018 dtd. 23/10/2020 Sec 276B 20,000/- 7 1223/2021 Same 77/2018 dtd. 15/02/2020 Sec 276B 1,00,000/- 8 1224/2021 Same 86/2018 dt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1961 5. The Customs Act, 1962 6. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 7. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 8. Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 9. The Gift Tax Act, 1958 10. The Export (Quality, Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 11. The Companies Act, 1956 12. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 3. The order pursuant to which the above notification is issued reads as under: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA "Subject : Special Court - Constitution of - for trial of Economic Offences - at Bangalore from 13.09.1982 - Orders reg. --- ORDER NO. LAW 106 LCE 79/DATED 01.09.1982 Read: 1. Letter No. 2-1-1979 Judl. dated 27-4-1979 from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Correspondence ending with letter C.No. VIII/17/21/79 Legal dated 18-10-79 from the collector of Central Excise, Central Revenues Building, Bangalore. 3. Letter No.23-6-79 dated 14-4-81 and Wireless Messages under No.23/5/82 Jus dated 3-5-82, 27-4-82, 26-5-82-and 16-6-82 from the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rst instance. xxx xxx xxx The 12 Central Acts. Referred to above are the following namely: 1. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 2. The Imports and Exports (Central) Act, 1947 3. The Wealth Tax Act, 1957 4. The Income Tax Act, 1961 5. The Customs Act, 1962 6. The Gold (Control) Act, 1968 7. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 8. Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 9. The Gift Tax Act, 1958 10. The Export (Quality, Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 11. The Companies Act, 1956 12. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 4. Another notification dated 04.02.1985 bearing No. LAW 139 LCE 79 has been issued by the Government of Karnataka which reads thus: NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the Provision to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 read with clause (1) of Section 2, and Section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act. No. 2 of 1974) the Government of Karnataka, in consultation with the High Court of Karnataka, hereby makes the following amendment to the Notification No. LAW 196 LCE 79 dated 01.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya (iii) Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya (iv) II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya (v) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya (vi) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya Srirangapatna (vii) Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srirangapatna (viii) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Krishnarajpet (ix) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagamangala (x) Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malavalli (xi) I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class. Malavalli (xii) Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maddur (xiii) I Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maddur (xiv) II Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maddur (xv) Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandavapura Mandya 8 (i) III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru (ii) Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Krishnarajana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) which has been designated as a Special Court under this section, shall continue to try the offences before it or offences arising under this Act after such designation; (ii) which has not been designated as a Special Court may continue to try such offence pending before it till its disposal; (b) a Special Court may, upon a complaint made by an authority authorized in this behalf under this Act take cognizance of the offence for which the accused is committed for trial. Trial of offences as summons case. 280C. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Special Court, shall try, an offence under this Chapter punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years or with fine or with both, as a summons case, and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as applicable in the case of trial of summons case, shall apply accordingly. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special Court. 280D. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other court. (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. (4) ... ... ..." 10. Section 377 of Cr.P.C. prior to amendment Act 25/2007 reads thus: "377. Appeal by the State Government against sentence.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any Court other than a High Court, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Special Court for Economic Offences is presided over by a Judicial Magistrate First Class or Chief Judicial Magistrate and therefore, said Special Court does not come under the term 'any other Court' under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. He contends that the order on sentence passed by the Special Court is the sentence passed by the Magistrate and an appeal lies to the Court of Sessions under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. He submits that if the appeal has been tried against the conviction by the Sessions Court and if the appeal is dealt by the High Court against inadequacy of sentence there may be conflicting judgments. 14. Learned counsel for appellant has not cited any decisions on the point urged by him. 15. I came across an unreported decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of R. Raja Rao, Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Skyline Constructions Ltd. And another, rendered in Crl.A. No. 1420/2003 dated 30.01.2009. In the said decision the coordinate Bench has considered similar point urged by the learned counsel for appellant and observed thus: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistrate. In this view of the matter, in a case of conviction of the accused by Special courts like, in the instant case, the special court for Economic Offences, the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, can prefer an appeal directly to the High court and not to the sessions court as provided in clause(a) of sub-section(1) of section 377 , Cr.P.C. 16. In the said decision the coordinate Bench has concluded that the words appearing in clause (b) - 'any other court' brings within its sweep 'Special Courts' even though they may be presided over by the officers of the rank of a Magistrate. 17. The said appeal, Crl.A. No. 1420/2003 has been filed in the year 2003 against the order on sentence dated 11.04.2003 passed in C.C. No. 1059/1999 by the Special Court of Economic Offences, Bengaluru, for offence under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the said appeal is filed in the year 2003, Section 377 of Cr.P.C., as it stood prior to amendment by Amendment Act No. 25/2005 was applicable. The Court ought not to have considered the aspect of maintainability by taking into consideration the amended provisions of clause (a) of sub-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be said to come under clause (b) - 'any other Court'. The Special Court for economic offences, Bangalore, is presided over by an officer of the rank of Magistrate and does not come under clause (b) - 'any other Court'. The appeal against convictions for offence under Chapter XXII of I.T. Act, 1961 lie to the Sessions Judge under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the respondent - accused has challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court and the said criminal appeal is pending before the Sessions Court. If the appeal has been tried against the judgment of conviction by the Sessions Court and if the appeal is dealt by the High Court against inadequacy of sentence it may lead to passing of conflicting judgments. In case in an appeal against conviction if the Sessions Court reverses the judgment of conviction and acquits the accused and the High Court allows the appeal filed against inadequacy of sentence then the said judgments are conflicting judgments against the same judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court. In order to avoid such conflicting judgments the appeal against conviction and appeal against inadequacy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy- (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court. (2) If such conviction is in a case in which the offence has been investigated by any agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Sanhita, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy- (a) to the Court of Session, if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate; and (b) to the High Court, if the sentence is passed by any other Court. (3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the Court of Session or, as the case may be, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence. (4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 64, section 6....