This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Taxation, Lahore, whereby he on 9-3-1978 convicted Mst. Diba Khanum appellant, under sections 51(2) and 52 of the Income- tax Act, 1922 and sentenced her to 3 months' S.I. On each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The charges against the appellant were that she concealed her income of Rs.10,000 from the Film which she earned in the assessment year, 1972-73 and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of her income, and as such, committed an offence punishable under section 51(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and that she made false statement in her verification appended to her income-tax return of the assessm ent year, 1972-73 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 52 of the aforesaid Act. She denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 3 witnesses. Shariq Mahmood, I.-T.O., P.W. 1 stated that Mat. Diba Khanum appellant had filed income-tax return copy Exh. P.C. For the assessment year 1972-73. Alongwith the return she had appended copy Exh. P.D., statement showing her income and expenditures relatable to the assessment year, 1972-73. The witness stated that in her return she had disclosed her annual gross income @ Rs.37,000. The witness also stated that during this assessm ent year, the appellant had acted as a Heroine in Film but she concealed the income of Rs.10,000 received by her from the Producer in her return and statement of income and expenditure. The witness further stated that the Producer of Film i.e. Messrs Sunrise Pictures, in their statement of accounts accompanying their income-tax return, for the year 1972-73. Had shown a sum of Rs.10,000 as paid to Mst Diba Khanum for the role played by her in Film. He also proved copies Exh. P.L. And P.M of the statement of the account of Messrs Sunrise Pictures for the year 1972- 73 and 1973-74. Syed Shamas-ul-Alim P.W. 3 stated that Mst. Diba Khanum appellant had played a role in his Film in the year 1972 and that Rs.10,000 were paid to her which were shown in his income- tax return alongwith the statement of accounts for the year, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The statement of Parvez Butt P.W. 2 is no more relevant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. , the appellant admitted to have played a role in Film.
She also admitted to have received Rs.10,000 from Messrs Sunrise Pictures. Her plea was that she had received Rs.10,000 as advance money in the year 1970 and not in the assessment year 1972-73.
She owned income-tax return and statement of account copies of which are Exhs. P.C. And P.D. She owned the verification of the original return. She categorically admitted that she had not declared the income of Film, because, in fact, she had received her professional fee of Rs.9,000 during the assessm ent year 1973-74 and not in the assessment year 1972-73. In defence she produced two witnesses. Shamim Ahmad D.W. 1 and Aziz-ul-Haq D.W. 2 made statement relatable to the professional fee of the appellant in Film. Since she has been acquitted of the charge relatable to this Film, therefore, their evidence is no more relevant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the charge framed against the appellant was defective and that the appeal filed by the appellant against assessment of her income made by the I.-T.O. Having been accepted by the appellate Tribunal, the appellant could not have been convicted under sections 51(2) and 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that from the statement of Shariq Mahmood, I.-T.O., P.W. 1, Syed Shamasul Alim P.W. 3 and documents Exhs. P.C., P.D., P.L. And P.M. Coupled with the admissions made by the appellant, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had not only concealed the income of Rs.10,000 earned by her in Film but had also furnished inaccurate particulars of her income pertaining to the assessm ent year, 1972-73 and had also made false statement in the verification. Since no objection was raised before the trial Court regarding the defect in the charge and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, therefore, the error, if any, in the charge would not be material, and the conviction cannot be reversed or altered on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge. The moment, the appellant/assessee concealed the particulars of his/her income and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of her income, the commission of the crime punishable under sections 51(2) and 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was complete and as such, the acceptance of the appeal by the appellate Tribunal against the assessment of the income would not exonerate the appellant of the commission of the offences. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.
7. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances that the appellant is a woman; that she has suffered agony of protracted trial; that she has, by now paid the income-tax and that it may not be proper to send her to jail after lapse of T years, I feel inclined to alter the sentence of imprisonment of 3 months' S.I. On each count to a fine of Rs.1,000 on each count or in default thereof one month's S.I. On each count. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs.2,000 (Two thousand) with the trial Court within 7 days. Failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for her arrest and detention in jail to serve out the sentence in default of Payment of Fine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.