MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN,J.--1. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Taxation, Lahore, whereby he on 1978 convicted Mst. Deeba 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} 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 assessment 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 Mehmood, I.T.O. P.W. 1 stated that Mst.
Deeba Khanum appellant had appended income-tax return copy Ex. PC for the assessment year, 1972-73. And alongwith the return she had appended copy Ex. PD statement showing that 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} i.e. M/s. Sun Rise 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. Deeba Khanum for the role played by her in Film {{URDU TEXT MISS}}. He also provided copies Ex. PL and PM of the statement of the account of M/s. Sunrise Pictures for the year, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Syed Shamas- ul-Alam P.W. 3 stated that Mst. Deeba Khanum appellant ,,ad played a role in his Film {{URDU TEXT MISS}} in the year, 1972 and that Rs. 10,000 were paid to her which were shown in her income tax return alongwith the statement of accounts for the years, 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} She also admitted to have received Rs. 10,000/- from M/s. Sunrise Pictures. Her plea was that she had received Rs. 10,000/- as advance money in the year 1970 and not in the assessm ent year 1972-73. She owned income tax return and statement of account copies of which are Ex. PC &. PD. She owned the verification of the original return. She categorically admitted that she had not declared the income of Film{{URDU TEXT MISS}} because, in fact she had received her professional fee of Rs. 9000 during the assessment 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} 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, has 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 Alam P.W. 3 and documents Ex.
PC, PD, PL & PM 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 {{URDU TEXT MISS}} 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 of the charge. The moment, the appel- lant/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(1) and 52 of the income Tax Act, 1922 was complete and as such, acceptance of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal against the assessment of the income would not exonerate the appellant of the commission the offences. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has 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 7 years. I feel Inclined to alter the sentence of imprisonment of 3 month's S.I. on each count to a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count or in default thereof one month's S.I. on each count. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs. 2000/- (Two thousands) 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.