P. Kuknhappa Nair and Co. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another

P.S. Gopinathan, J.—In a prosecution for offence u/s 277(ii) read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the revision petitioner pleaded guilty before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam in C.C. No. 148 of 1990. The learned Magistrate recorded the plea of guilty. The revision petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50,000. The revision petitioner preferred Crl. A. No. 241 of 2001. When the criminal appeal came up before the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, the revision petitioner argued that in the light of the decision in Prem Dass Vs. Income Tax Officer, , the charge should not have been framed. After setting aside the conviction and sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order of remand in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

Having heard either side, I find that the question as to whether the ratio of the decision in the above reported case is applicable to the case on hand is a matter that can be examined by the trial court. The appellate court had not at all in any way erred in remanding the matter to the trial court. There is no illegality or impropriety also. I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.