Income Tax Dept's Appeal Against Inadequate Sentence Lies Before Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the Income Tax Department under Section 377 of Cr.P.C.

The bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar has observed that on a reading of Section 418 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sahita (BNSS), it is in pari materia with Section 377 of Cr.P.C. Even under the BNSS, no provision has been introduced for filing an appeal before the High Court if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate. Sub-Section (3) of Section 415 of BNSS provides for filing an appeal to the Court of Sessions against judgement of conviction on a trial held by the Magistrate. The reasons noted supra will also apply to the appeals filed or to be filed under Section 418 of BNSS.

The Income Tax Department has filed these appeals under Section 377 of Cr.P.C. against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy.

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, a Special Court established under Section 280-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class has been established under notification dated 01.09.1982 issued by the Government of Karnataka.

Prior to amendment Act No. 25/2005, the High Court only had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Subsequent to amendment of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C., an appeal against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy is provided to the Court of Sessions if the sentence is passed by the Magistrate and to the High Court if the sentence is passed by any other Court. The object of the amendment to sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. was to permit the filing of an appeal in the Court of Sessions instead of the High Court on the ground of inadequacy of sentence passed by a Magistrate.

The department contended that the order of sentence has been passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences and it has to be considered as the sentence passed by `any other Court' and appeals against inadequacy of sentence will lie to the High Court under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C. He contends that the Special Court for Economic Offences is not a Court of Magistrate, and therefore, the appeal will not lie to the Court of Sessions under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 377 of Cr.P.C.

The accused contended that the appeals lie against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by Magistrate to the Sessions Court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. The respondents-accused have challenged the judgment of conviction and order on sentence by filing appeals before the Sessions Court under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., and they are pending before the Sessions Court. If the appeal has been tried against the conviction by the Sessions Court and if the appeal is dealt with by the High Court against inadequacy of sentence, there may be conflicting judgments.

The court, while dismissing the department's appeal, gave the liberty to the Income Tax Department to present the appeal before the jurisdictional Sessions Court within a period of two months.

Counsel For Appellant: E I Sanmathi

Counsel For Respondent: S. Annamalai

Case Title: The Income Tax Department Versus M/S. Jenious Clothing Private Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 340

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2104/2023 C/W Crl.A. Nos.1339/2020, 925/2021, 950/2021, 954/2021, 1207/2021, 1222/2021, 1223/2021, 1224/2021, 1229/2021, 1319/2021, 1326/2021, 1330/2021, 1337/2021, 672/2022, 810/2022, 898/2022, 2233/2022, 2245/2022 And 1913/2023.

Click Here To Read The Order