Criminal Revision No. 658 of 1949. Case: Income-tax Officer Vs The State. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision No. 658 of 1949 |
| Judges | Weston, C.J., Khosla, Harnam Singh, Kapur and Soni, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 420 and 182 |
| Citation | 1950 CriLJ 1273 , [1950] 18 ITR 688 (P&H) |
| Judgement Date | May 19, 1950 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Weston, C.J.
-
This matter has been directed to come before a Bench of five Judges. The referring Bench has not formulated the points for our decision, and some statement of history is necessary. I omit dates which are not of importance.
-
It appears that a Sub-Inspector of Police, Hullender, was conducting the investigation of a case Under Sections 7 and 10, Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1940, and also Under Sections 420 and 182, Penal Code, against two persona. In the course of his investigation, the Sub-Inspector made a written request to the Income-tax Officer, Jullundur, asking him to hand over certain income-tax returns and statements relating thereto made by the two persons, There is no dispute that this request must be referred to Section 94, Criminal P.C. The Income-tax Officer declined to hand over the papers, stating that Under Section 51, Income-tax Act, he was precluded from so doing. The Sub-Inspector then made a written application Under Section 96 of the Code to the Ilaqa Magistrate, Jullundur, requesting issue of a search warrant, and the Magistrate made an order directing the Sub-Inspector "to enter the Income-tax Office, Jullundur, and to obtain possession of the relevant record in accordance with law."
Following his order the Magistrate issued a search warrant in the form provided in sch. 5 of the Code, which form is as follows:
VIII. -- WASRANT TO SEARCH AFTER INFORMATION OB A PARTICULAR OFFENCE.
(See Section 96)
To (Name and designation of the Police Officer or other person or persons who is or are to execute the warrant.)
Whereas information has been laid (or complaint has been made) before me of the commission (or suspected commission) of the offence of (mention the offence concisely), and it has been made to appear to me that the production of (specify the thing clearly) is essential to the Inquiry now being made or about to 'be made into the said offence or suspected offence;
This is to authorize and require you to search for the said (the thing specifies) in the (describe the house or.place or part thereof to which the search ia to be confined) and, if found, to produce the game forthwith before this Court, returning that warrant, with an endorsement certifying what you have done under it, immediately upon its execution.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court,
this...day of...19.
(Seal) (Signature).
3. A revision application against the order of the Magistrate and the warrant issued was filed on behalf of the Income-tax Officer in the Sessions Court, Jullundur. This revision application was rejected by the Sessions Judge who gave reasons which it does not appear necessary to set out. A further revision was then filed in this Court, and it is with this revision application that we have now to deal. There have been orders of stay in all the Courts, and the warrant has not bean executed.
-
It ia claimed by Mr. Puri on behalf of the Income-tax Office that the warrant issued is illegal as it offends against express provisions contained in 6. 64, Income tax Act, and at this stage it seems desirable to set out the material parts of Section 54, which are els. (1) and (2):
(1) All particulars contained in any statement, disclosure made, return furnished or accounts or information or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or in any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceedings relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872, no Court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of any such record, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof.
(2) If a public servant discloses any particulars contained in any such statement, return, accounts, documents, evidence, affidavit, deposition or record, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, and shall also be liable to fine.
-
Clause (3) provides that nothing in the section shall apply to the disclosure of certain particulars of fact to certain persona, officers or Courts for certain purposes or in certain conditions. It is to be mentioned that no exception of the operation of the section is provided when there ia investigation by the police into offences such as were the subject of investigation in the present case; and the reliance place by the Jullunder Magistrate upon Clause (3) in the order which he made was not justified.
-
Clause (4) is not material. Clause (s) pro. vides that no prosecution shall be instituted under the section except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner.
-
The first question which calla for our decision is that raised by Mr. Puri, namely, whether the warrant issued by the Magistrate was illegal as offending against the provisions of Section 64, Income-tax Act. This Act (to which it will be convenient to refer as the Act) is a special Act, and any prohibition made by it will prevail against any power conferred or procedure prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (to which I will refer as the Code). We have heard argument upon the meaning to be given to the words ''public servant" which appear in els. (1) and (2) of Section 64 of the Act. Relying upon a Bombay deoision, Emperor v. Osman Ghotani I. L. R. (1942) Bom 767: A I. R. (29) 1942 Bom. 289: 44 Cr.L.J. 7, the learned Advocate-General claims that public servants in this section must be held restricted to Officers of the Income-tax Department and therefore, there is no satiation provided in the section against disclosure by other public servants. Mr, Puri on the other hand has pointed out that Public servant is defined in Section 130 of the Act to have the same meaning as in the Penal Code. He claims, therefore, that there is no justification for limiting its meaning to one particular class of Public servants. He has drawn our attention to the fact that it is in Section 54 alone of the Act that the expression public servant finds place, and be urges that the legislature should be taken to have intended their definition of an expression they have used only in one section to be precise, notwithstanding the provision in Section 2 that definitions given in the section must be subject to repugnancy in the context.
-
I do not think it necessary for us to decide this point. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial