Satyaban Roy Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 1123 of 2016

Satyaban Roy, alias Satyaban Singh, son of late Satyandra Kumar Roy, Resident of Baramuri O.C.P. Mugma Area, E.C.L. P.O. and P.S. Chirkunda, District, Dhanbad, Jharkhand

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. C.P. Bhatia, S/o J.N. Bhatia, Income Tax Officer, Ward No. II (2) MADA Building P.O. and P.S Dhanbad, district Dhanbad, Jharkhand … … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate For the Income Tax : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Advocate ---

¶10

15 /12.09.2024

¶11

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶12

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments on the point of sentence.

¶13

3. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2016 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner has been convicted vide judgement dated 11.12.2015 by Special Judge Economic Offences Dhanbad in C.O. case No. 48 of 2004 under section 277 of Income Tax Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in case of default further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

¶14

Argument of the Petitioner.

¶15

4. The learned counsel during the course of argument has confined only to the point of sentence and submitted that the case was instituted as back as in the year 2004 and more than 20 years have elapsed. He has also submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for some time during the pendency of this case. The learned counsel has further submitted that considering the long-drawn criminal case which

¶16

has been faced by the petitioner, the sentence may be reduced to some extent.

¶17

Argument of the Income Tax Department (Complainant)

¶18

5. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department, has opposed the prayer and submitted that under the provisions of Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, when the amount involved is more than Rs.25,000, there is a minimum sentence of 6 months.

¶19

6. The learned counsel has submitted that considering the nature of offence by which a forged TDS certificate was utilized by the petitioner and claimed refund which was amounting of Rs.35,425/-, no sympathetic view be taken in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel has however not disputed that the case was instituted way back in the year 2004.

¶20

Findings of this Court.

¶21

7. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that as per the prosecution case, the petitioner had filed false income tax return and wrongly claimed refund of Rs. 35,425/- for the assessment year 200304 and furnished TDS certificate and claimed deduction on account of housing loan but such documents on which refund was claimed were found to be forged and fabricated upon verification.

¶22

8. Consequently, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 30.11.2003 to which he did not respond. The prosecution was launched and before the court, the prosecution led both oral and documentary evidence to prove their case but the defence did not lead any evidence, either oral or documentary. Before the learned Trial Court, inter alia , the return in SARAL form (Exhibit-2) and the show-cause notice issued by the Income Tax Department (Exhibit-4) have been marked exhibits without any objection from the side of the petitioner. The filing of return is not in dispute. The petitioner, in the statement before the court examination under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

¶23

2

¶24

has admitted that he had filed the return and also admitted that he received the show cause notice (Exhibit 4) contained his signature.

¶25

9. This Court finds that the prosecution had proved the required facts to hold the petitioner guilty of offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act and so far as mens rea i.e ‘culpable mental state’ is concerned that is certainly covered under section 278 E of the Income Tax Act which provides for a presumption regarding 'culpable mental state' in the matter of prosecution under Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶26

10. The learned court had scrutinized the materials on record and recorded finding against the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty under section 277 of the Income Tax Act.

¶27

11. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and upheld the conviction and also considered the provisions of section 278 E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to presumption of 'culpable mental state.' However, the sentence was reduced to 1 year.

¶28

12. This Court also finds that there are concurrent findings of the learned courts after scrutinizing the materials on record and holding the petitioner guilty for offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. There is no illegality or perversity or any material irregularity with regard to the conviction of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also confined his arguments to the point of sentence. 13. The learned trial court had sentenced the petitioner for a period of two years and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. So far as the learned appellate court is concerned, the appellate court has considered that the petitioner had faced the rigors of trial for more than 12 years and modified the sentence to one year vide impugned judgement dated 06.05.2016. The fine amount was sustained by the learned appellate court.

¶29

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that 20 years have already elapsed from the date of filing of the complaint case, which is relating to assessment year 2003-2004, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of the petitioner is fit

¶30

3

¶31

to be further modified to secure the ends of justice and some fine amount be enhanced.

¶32

15. Accordingly, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to 6 months and fine amount is enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The fine amount be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this judgement to the concerned trial court.

¶33

16. In case the petitioner does not deposit the fine amount within the stipulated time, the petitioner would serve the sentence as already awarded by the learned appellate court. It is further directed that the fine amount so deposited by the petitioner be remitted to the Income Tax Department.

¶34

17. This criminal revision is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of sentence.

¶35

18. The bail bond furnished by the petitioner is cancelled.

¶36

19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

¶37

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶38

Saurav/-

¶39

4

Satyaban Roy v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyaban Roy v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupai Manjhi Vs Central Bureau Of Investigation

Shushama Devi Alias Sushma Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Akil Khan Alias Aqil Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kamal Mahato and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand