SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomos, J. and R.P. Sethi, J.

Criminal Appeal 661/2000. D/d. 11.8.2000.

Union of India - Petitioner

Versus

Mamta Sethi & Ors. - Respondents

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Income Tax Act, 1961, Sections 276C, 277 and 292A - Respondents convicted under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act - Released under Probation of Offenders Act - Appellant-Union assailed the order of release before High Court in Criminal Appeal which was dismissed- Appeal in Supreme Court - Held - Prima facie the interdict in terms of express bar contained in Section 292A of Income Tax Act which prohibits invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, is insurmountable, but due to the contention of the respondents that they are able to convince the High Court that they are not liable to conviction at all under Section 276C and 277 of Income Tax Act, matter remanded back to High Court for consideration afresh.

[Para 4]

ORDER

K.T. Thomos, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The respondents were convicted under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but they were released under the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellant-Union challenged the said order before the High Court in a criminal appeal. But a learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal with one sentence "I find no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, hence, dismissed".

4. The contention of the appellant-Union is that the trial court as well as the High Court missed to notice Section 292A of the Income-tax Act contemning an express bar against the invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in respect of the offence enumerated in the Income-tax Act. Prima facie, the said interdict is insurmountable but learned counsel for the respondents contended that they are able to convince the High Court that they are not liable to conviction at all under Section 276C or 277 of the Income-tax Act. It is open to the respondents to canvass for the said position in the appeal which the Union filed against them. Without prejudice to their right in raising such contention we set aside the impugned order and send the criminal appeal back to the High Court for disposal afresh according to law.

5. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.