LALJI HARIDAS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under s. 37(4), though judicial for certain purposes, must be treated as proceedings in any court within the meaning of s. 195(1)(b) CrPC; since no written complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, the bar under s. 195(1)(b) applies and the appellant's criminal complaint was not competent.
- Parties
- Appellant: Lalji Haridas; Respondent No. 1: State of Maharashtra; Respondent No. 2: Mui.ii Manilal Kamdar
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 07 February 1964
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- False Evidence, Income Tax Offence, Judicial Proceeding, Court Definition, Procedure Bar Under S. 195 Cr PC
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lalji Haridas
Appellant
State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 1
Mui.ii Manilal Kamdar
Respondent No. 2
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under s. 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 are proceedings in any court within the meaning of s. 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure
- 2 Whether false evidence given in such proceedings can only be prosecuted upon complaint by the Income-tax Officer
Ratio Decidendi
Proceedings before an Income-tax Officer under s. 37(4), though judicial for certain purposes, must be treated as proceedings in any court within the meaning of s. 195(1)(b) CrPC; since no written complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, the bar under s. 195(1)(b) applies and the appellant's criminal complaint was not competent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal fails and is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment