Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 Date of Decision:20.07.2009 Lehna Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision has been preferred against judgment dated 12.10.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby he partly accepted the appeal of the accused Lehna Singh and Ram Dia by reducing the sentence with the following observations:- “In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is partly accepted. The conviction of the appellants is maintained and upheld and the sentence portion of the judgment dated 9.10.1993 is modified. Both the appellants- accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 276(c) of the Income Tax Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence punishable under Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 -2- Section 277 of the Income Tax Act. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month more. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently. File be consigned to the record room.” The appeal was filed against the judgment dated 8.10.1993/ order of sentence dated 9.10.1993 rendered by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, vide which he convicted and sentenced the accused Lehna Singh, Ram Dia, Sat Narain and M/s Lehna Singh Cane Crusher Partnership firm through its partner Lehna Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 276(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, `the Act') each and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 277 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused was to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months, with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. Shortly put, the facts are that on 10.7.1980, the action under Section 132 of the Act was carried on the business as well as residential premises of the afore-mentioned partners of M/s Lehna Singh Cane Crusher Partnership firm. In this course, Narinder Singh Income Tax Officer, Panipat recorded the statement of the accused Lehna Singh, who stated that about 15/20 days back, he sold 78 bags of khand worth Rs.40,000/- in which he received the amount in cash. Out of this amount, he had paid Rs.6,200/- to Om Parkash of Village Dikadla, cultivator and Rs.15,000/- to Maya, resident of Village Garhi, also a cultivator. Later on, they filed return of income for the assessment year 1981-82, because the accounting year of Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 -3- the accused ends on 30th September of the relevant year. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice under Section 131 of the Act was issued and the Assessing Authority had impounded account books, i.e., cash book, ledger and payment register. A close scrutiny and perusal of the account books revealed that there was no transaction with regards to 78 bags of khand entered in the books of account, nor cash amount of Rs.40,000/- as stated by Lehna Singh on 10.7.1980. The scrutiny of payment register also showed that no amount was paid to Om Parkash and Maya as alleged. In the cash book, the amount of Rs.40,000/- was not shown to have been received in cash against sale of 78 bags of khand. Accused omitted to make the true entries in the books of accounts, which they were bound to enter faithfully. They also omitted to make the entries in the books of accounts, which they should have made regularly. The accused also made false entries in the books of accounts. The accused made these books of accounts after action under Section 132 of the Act. The accused then stated that the documents mentioned in the seizure memo on 10.7.1980 did not include the cash book and ledger. The accused Lehna Singh also admitted in his statement dated 10.7.1980 that whatever books have been found, are the only books with him and they do not have any other books. This clearly proves that the accused have forged and fabricated the account books later on and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 276(c) and 277 of the Act. Accused also made false statements in the income tax return and statement of accounts filed along-with it, which they knew to be false and thereby committed offence under Sections 276(c) and 277 of the Act. The complaint containing these allegations was lodged. The accused were summoned. Accused Sat Narain was declared Proclaimed Offender, Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 -4- whereas Lehna Singh and Ram Dia accused and the firm faced the trial. After recording the pre-charge evidence, the accused were charged under Sections 276(c) and 277 of the Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. On close of the prosecution evidence, when accused Lehna Singh and Ram Dia were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. In their defence, they examined DW1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved therewith, they went up in appeal, which was partly accepted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat with modifications as indicated at the outset. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, they have filed this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record, with due care and circumspection. Realising that he won't be able to persuade the Court to take a view contrary to the findings returned by both the Courts below, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not wish to assail the conviction recorded by both the Courts below in any manner. On analysing and scrutinising the prosecution evidence with due care and caution, it transpires that no exception can be taken to the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Sequelly, the conviction is maintained. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this incidence having taken place way back in 1980, the sentence may be reduced to the already undergone. Criminal Revision No.1339 of 1999 -5- I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. In re: Radhey Shyam Aggarwal v. State N.C.T. Delhi, 2009 (1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 973 (S.C.), the accused was convicted and sentenced to 15 months rigorous imprisonment under the Food Adulteration Act. The incident being 20 years old, the sentence was reduced to the already undergone (one year). In the instant case, the petitioners while on bail during pendency of this revision petition did not make misuse of this liberty. The petitioners have been facing the agony of trial for the past more than 28 years. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the already undergone (18 days). The fine imposed by the learned trial Court upon each petitioner is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The difference of fine shall be deposited by the petitioners in the trial Court within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. In the event of failure to deposit, the enhanced amount within the aforesaid period, the petition of the defaulting petitioner shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In that eventuality, the trial Court itself being the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate shall take necessary steps to send the petitioner to prison. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. Disposed of. July 20, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No