Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
1% 2
€50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
was not satisfied in the course of the assessment
Ths Cummissioner of proceeding that the firm had concealed its income. Inometex, Madre: ‘The agsseasment order is dated November 10, 1951,
$. V. Angidi Chettiar
Shek J.
January 19.
and there is an endorsement at the foot of the assessment order by the Income-tax Officer that action under s. 28 had been taken for concealment of income indicating clearly that the Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the firm had concealed its income.
In our view, the High Court was in error ‘in holding that penalty could not be imposed under
8. 28 (1) (c) upon the firm Messrs. S. V. Veerappan Chettiar & Co.,-after its dissolution.
The appeals will thorefore be allowed and the orders passed by the High Court will be set aside and the petitions filed by the respondents dismissed with costs in this Court and the High Court. One hearing fee.
Appeals allowed.
——
PALAKDHARI SINGH & OTHERS.
v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(J.L. Kapur and Racuusar Dayal, JJ.)
Limttetion—Panchayati Adaiat—Fine imposed on conviction—Recovery after expiry of siz yeare—lf barred—U.P. Panchayat Kaj Act, 1947. (U.P. XXVI of 1947) es. 54, 83, 94— Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1960) 8. 70.
The appellant was convicted by the Panchayati Adalat for theft and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75/- in 1950. The conviction and sentence was confirmed in 1953 by the High Court in revision. In 1958 proceedings were taken to recover the fine. The appellant contended that the recovery was barred bys. 70 The Indian Penal Code. The respondent contended that s. 70 was not applicable to convictions by Panchayati Adalats and that the limitation started from the date of the order of the High Court.
28.C-R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 651
Heid, that s. 70 Indian Penal Code was applicable to convictions by the Panchayati Adalats and that the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years from the date of conviction was barred. There was no provision in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act prescribing any period of limitation or providing for the non-applicability of s. 70 of the Code tc sentences of fine imposed by the Panchayati Adalats. The limitation started from the date of the ‘“‘passing of the sentence” and the filing of appeal or revision did not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the orcer imposing the sentence.
Judgment
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1960. ;
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September, 7 1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Reference No. 470 of 1958.
K.P. Gupta, for the appellants. -
G.C. Mathur and C.P. Lal, for the respondent No. I,
1962, January 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Karur, J.—This appeal raises the question of the applicability of 8. 70 of the Indian Penal Code to fines imposed in convictions for offences under the Indian Penal Code but tried by Tribunals called the Panchayati Adalats, now known as Nyaya Panchayats.
The appellants were convicted by a Panchayati Adalat on February 5, 1950, for an offence under
8. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75/- each. A revision against that order was taken to the High Court which was dis missed on May 13,1953. In January 1958, proceedings were taken for the recovery of the fine imposed against the appellants by the Panchayati Adalat. In a_ revision ‘against. that order an objection was raised that the fine was not recoverable as it was barred by s. 70 of the Indian
Patakdhari Singh v.
The Siaze of Uttar Pradesh
Kapur J.
Palakdhori Singh v,
The Stave of Utear Pradesh
Kapur J.
652 SUPREME COURT REPOKTS [1£62} SUPP.
Penal Code. ‘The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated February 6, 1958, held the recovery of the fine to be barred under that section. But a revision was taken to the District Magistrate who recommended the setting aside of the order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that there was no period of limitation. The High Court by its order dated’ September 7, 1959 accepted the recommendation of the District Magistrate and held that there is no limit to the time within which the fines imposed by a Panchayati Adalat can be realised. It is against this order that the appellants have brought this appeal by special leave.
The conviction of the appellants was under 8.379 of the Indian Penal Code and if they had been tried and convicted by a Magistrate acting under the Criminal Procedure Code, the recovery of tho fine would have been barred under s. 70, Indian Penal Code. But it is submitted that if tho conviction is bya Panchayati Adalat, the ban on the recovery of the fine after the expiry of six years limitation is no longer applicable.
It is necessary to refer tothe relevant provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Kaj Act (Act XXVI of 1947), hereinafter called the ‘Act’, as applicable to the facts of this case. Under s. 52 of the Act, certain offences are cognizable by the Panchayati Adalats and the offence under s. 379 of the Indian Penal Code is one of them. Section 64 empowers those Panchayati Adalats to impose penalties and it is provided that they have no power to inflict substantive sentences of imprisonment or umprisonment in default of payment of fine. Under 8.83, provisions of the Indian bvidence Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Limitation Act, are made inapplicablo excepting to the extent that the Act makes them applicable. Section ¥4 provides for recovery of fine and it guns as follows :
25.6.2. SUPBEME COURTREPORTS. 653
; of { 1902 [, “any, fins, ‘imposed3! tor »compensation ae ! - , ordered to be, paid-in s. 61 by a Nvaya Pan-! Palakdhari Singh chayat shal--be- urecpverable tin the thanner The Sigle of + prescribed: But if the. Nyaya ‘fanchayat finds Uttar Pradesh | nany diffculty.tin its recovery, it may request Kapw J )
the Sub- Divisicnall Ma gistraté within whose Frat the Nvaya Panchayat fies -to recéyet ib”and ‘He;shall recover it as if the sen: oy, pense ‘of fino had been passed by him,”
eS Rilo 82 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules dcals-with the limitation for writing off of fines and jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalats. It provides as‘to how fines which are not recoverable can be written off, but there is no provision in this rule as to the period of limitation, [herefore tas far, as the Act
| is concerned, there is no provision prescribing a period of limitation or, prgviding for the non-appli- eability of s. 70 ofthe elIndlah Pen&i Code to sentences of: fine. passed: jby*the Panchayati-.Adalats..<As & matter of facts. 94tof the, Act provides that if there is difficulty-in the recovery of a fire, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall t recover it as, if it was a ;fine impostd~ -by -himself, which supports«the coritea~ tion’of the “ippollahts’ “thatthe period of limitation as provided in s. 70 of the Indian Penal Code isnot made inappieey to-copyictipns' by! Panchayati'Adaldts. Tn,ouf eeu he Distfict "Magistrate aswell ag,the, High Ca tt were in .crror in holding thst the periodsof limitation promided by..s. 70, of the: Indian.-Renal !Code_ is inapplicable to» the | rechvary we fines 'Srhpised 1 hy Panchaytti Adalats.
A It WAS, next, argued that the.f inal order which is the: ferminus «&tguo' under s. FOr-of th: » Indian Penal: Coddis the orders ofthe High Court pasced.
: in feFYSidn: ‘on. May’ le 1959 and ‘frie. thar date: tlie Prspsatdings ae HedWety are within tity’. “Put! the Janguage of. s. 50. prescribes the. Leraninvus, & 74g, to be the date of, “passing: of the sentente” by Court, whichgpasses such" dtder'antt the ‘filitterof fappestor ‘our
Palakdheri Singh Vv
The State of Uttar Pradesh
Kapur J,
. January 19,
654 SUPREME COURT-REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest the operation of the order of passing of the sentence of conviction. In the present case the limitation started from the date of conviction by the Panchayati Adalat and not from the date of dismissal of Kevision by the High Court.
We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order ‘of the High Court and restore that of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated February 6, 1958.
Appeal Allowed.
ONDER SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C. Das Gurra and RacuoupaRr Dayan, JJ.)
Criminal Trial—Acquitial of one accused—No appeal against acquiltal—Appeal to High Caurt by other convicted accused—Power of High Courti—Whether can consider correctness of the acquittal—Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 5 of
1898), s. 423.
Four: persons S, G, L and R were tried for offences under s. 202 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge gave the benefit of doubt to R and acquitted him but he convicted the other three of the’ offences charged and sentence them to death. No appeal was preferred against’ the acquittal of R. but the three convicted persons appealed to the High Court. --The High Court was of the view-that the Sessions Judge was wreng in giving the benefit of doubt,to R, that R was present at the scene of offence and all the four accused had the common intention alleged by the prosecution, Relying upon the evidence of the eye witness it dismissed the appeal, but reduced the sentence of G to life imprisonment. The appellants contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction or authority to embark upoh an enquiry into ‘the propriety or validity of the acquittal of R and that its, finding that R had taken part in the offence as alleged ‘by the prosecution had introduced a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. \