High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
Parveen Kumar vs. ITO & Ors.
Section 276C, 277
Asst. Year 1985-86
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Criminal Revision No. 604 of 2001
3rd March, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
Dr. Surya Parkash for S.K. Garg Narwana, for the Petitioner : Kapil Aggarwal for K.K. Mehta & S.S. Mor, for the
Respondents
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. :
Petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, vide judgment and order dt. 30th Aug., 1996 under s. 277 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted and sentenced under s. 276C(1) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the same, the appeal filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, vide judgment and order dt. 22nd March, 2001. The appellate Court had reduced the sentence from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment under ss. 276C(1) and 277 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was working as property dealer. He was income-tax assessee having a status of individual. He had concealed certain properties and plots purchased in the return filed for asst. yr. 1985-86. It is stated that notice under s. 143(1) of the Act was received on 17th July, 1986. Notice was also issued to petitioner to participate in Selective Scrutiny Scheme. It is stated that petitioner, on appearance, admitted the lapse and had given the details of the properties which were not mentioned in the IT returns and had also paid the penalty. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he will not contest the petition on merits as two Courts below have upheld the conviction of the petitioner. Counsel further states that even though the Act has provided minimum sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment, long pendency of the case be taken as special reason for reduction of sentence to already undergone. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has undergone about seven days of his actual sentence.
To fortify his submissions, counsel for the petitioner relied upon R.V. Lyngdoh vs. State (Delhi) Special Establishment 1999(1) Recent Criminal Reports 858, Harbans Singh vs. State 2003(2) Recent Criminal Reports
60 and Des Raj vs. State of Haryana 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 689 to contend that protracted trial in itself has been taken into consideration by Courts as mitigating circumstance. Counsel further submitted that at the very outset when the notice was received, petitioner accepted non-disclosure of the properties and had paid the penalty before the competent authority. Counsel has further submitted that instead of sending the petitioner behind the bars, he may be given an opportunity to reform himself. It has been further submitted that in the last 23 years, responsibilities of the petitioner to look after his family have increased. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that heavy fine can be imposed instead of sending the petitioner behind the bars. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, advocate, has stated that awarding of penalty in itself does not absolve the petitioner of his guilt. Taking into consideration the ratio of law laid down in R.V. Lyngdoh’s case (supra), Harbans Singh’s case (supra), and Des Raj’s case (supra), I am of the view that after 23 years, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars and the protracted trial in itself is a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, sentence awarded upon the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. However, he is fastened with the fine of Rs. 50,000 which on deposit shall be disbursed to the IT Department. The entire amount of fine be deposited within three months from the receipt of certified copy of judgment. In case the amount of fine is not deposited, benefit of reduction in sentence shall not accrue to the petitioner. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of.
[Citation : 321 ITR 282]
