Dismissed

State v. M/S.S.S.Willson and Co. and Ors. v M/S. S.S. Willson and Co. and Others.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2004APEAL/272/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the State challenged the acquittal or light sentencing of accused persons convicted under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct tax at source. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the accused had paid dues pending trial and dismissing enhancement.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal was dismissed; the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

State vs. M/S.S.S.Willson and Co. and Ors. Vs M/S. S.S… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

¶2

`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY` `CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION` `CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 1991`
`The State of Maharashtra.``.. Appellant.`
`v/s.`
`1. M/s.S.S.Willson & Com. )` `15-A, Raviwar Peth, Akkalkot )` `Road, Solapur. )` `)`
`2. Vithal Rajaram Shriram, )` `Age: Major, Occ.Business, )` `R/o H.No.1503, New Pacha Peth, )` `Solapur.(Dead)(deleted as per )` `Court’s order dated 17/8/91) )` `)`
`3. Sudarshan Narasaya Shriram )` `Age: Major, occ.Business, )` `R/o 1504, New Pacha Peth, )` `Solapur. )` `)`
`4. Kisan Dubayya Shriram, )` `Age: Major, Occ. Business, )` `R/o as above. )`
`)` `5. Smt.Shakuntala Murlidhar Shriram )` `Age:Major, Occ.Business, )` `R/o 1503,New Pacha Peth, Solapur. )` `)`
`6. Shriprakash Vyankayya Madur. )` `Age:Major, Occ.Business, )` `R/o 209, Sakhar Peth, Solapur. )`
`)` `7. Shri Prasad Laxminarayan Shriram, )` `Age: Major, Occ.Business, )` `R/o 1503, New Pacha Peth, Solapur.)``.. Respondents`
`Shri B.H.Mehta, APP for appellant.`

¶3

 None for respondents.

¶4

CORAM: V.M.KANADE, J.

¶5

DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2004,

¶6

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶8

 . The Government has challenged the Judgment and
 order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in
 Regular Criminal Case No.49/86. By the said Judgment
 and order dated 15/1/1991, the Trial court convicted
 the original Accused No.1 and 3 to 7 for having
 committed an offence punishable under section 276-B of
 the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the accused were sentenced
 to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court
 and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each i.d. to suffer S.I.
 for 7 days.

¶9

 2. Prosecution case is that the accused No.1 is
 registered partnership firm and accused No.2 to 7 are
 the partners. As per the provisions of Section 194-A
 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the firm was required to
 deduct tax at 10 percent on the interest credited to
 the accounts of the partners. On failure to make the
 payment, complaint was lodged. The Trial Court held
 that there was non-compliance of the said provisions
 and therefore, convicted the accused under section
 276-B of the Income Tax Act and sentenced them to
 suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the court and
 to pay fine of Rs.100/-each. The state has preferred
 an appeal seeking enhancement in the said punishment.

¶10

¶11

 3. In my view no case is made out for interfering

¶12

 with the Judgment and order passed by the Judicial
 Magistrate First Class. It is admitted position that
 the accused have paid tax dues with penalty and
 interest even before the commencement of the assessment
 during the pendency of the trial. The Managing Partner
 Vithal Shriram died due to heart decease. Thus there
 was no preliminary intention on the part of the
 respondents. I do not see any reason to interfere in
 the said Judgment and order. Appeal accordingly
 dismissed.

¶13

 4. Criminal Appeal Nos. 284 of 1991 and 285 of 1991
 to be heard seperately.

¶14

 . Certified copy expedited.

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶17

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶18

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.272 OF 1991.

¶19

DATE OF DECISION : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2004.

¶20

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF

¶21

THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.M.KANADE.

¶22

 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers
 may be allowed to see the Judgement ?

¶23

 2. Whether to be referred to the
 Reporter or not ?

¶24

 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
 see the fair copy of the Judgement ?

¶25

 4. Whether this case involves a
 substantial question of law as to
 interpretation of the Constitution of
 India 1950 or any order made
 thereunder ?

¶26

 5. Whether it is to be circulated to
 the Civil Judges ?

¶27

 6. Whether the case involves an
 important question of law and whether
 a copy of the judgement should be
 sent to Nagpur, Aurangabad & Goa
 Offices ?

¶28

 ast.

State v. M/S.S.S.Willson and Co. and Ors. v M/S. S.S. Willson and Co. and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. M/S.S.S.Willson and Co. and Ors. v M/S. S.S. Willson and Co. and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramling Nivrutti Shinde and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Anil Aba Nikam

State vs. M/S.Mehra Shawls and Ors. Vs M/S. Mehra Shawals and Others.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dada Nana Mane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Namdeo Gabaji Pavshe

Gulik Dattu @ Gatya Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra