The Karnataka High Court has rejected the appeals filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 415 of BNSS permits appeals to the Sessions Court against a Magistrate’s conviction. This rationale applies equally to appeals under Section 418 of BNSS.
Additionally, the appeals were filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C., contesting the inadequacy of the sentence imposed.
Read More: Karnataka HC Grants Hearing Opportunity Due to Ignored GST SCN Reply
The Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, established under Section 280-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pronounced the conviction and sentencing. A Special Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class was established by a Karnataka government notification dated September 1, 1982.
The Income Tax Department argued that the sentence from the Special Court for Economic Offences should be treated as originating from ‘any other Court’, thus allowing appeals to the High Court under Section 377(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They contended that this Special Court is not a Magistrate’s court, precluding appeals to the Sessions Court under Section 377(1)(a) or (2)(a) of the Cr.P.C.
Read Also: Karnataka HC directs Refund of EMD Due to GST payment condition in Tender Document
In response, the accused asserted that appeals against the Magistrate’s conviction and sentencing should be directed to the Sessions Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. The accused have already filed appeals challenging their conviction and sentencing before the Sessions Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C., which are currently pending.
The possibility of conflicting judgments arises if the Sessions Court hears the conviction appeal and the High Court considers the sentence inadequacy appeal. Before the amendment by Act No. 25/2005, the High Court’s jurisdiction extended only to appeals regarding the inadequacy of sentences.
Read More Here: Karnataka HC quashes Blacklisting of Company without Hearing
Post-amendment of Section 377(1) and (2) of the Cr.P.C., appeals regarding inadequate sentences passed by Magistrates were directed to the Sessions Court, with High Court jurisdiction applying if the sentence originated from any other court. The amendment aimed to shift appeals on sentence inadequacy from the High Court to the Sessions Court when sentences are issued by Magistrates.
The Single Bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar noted that Section 418 of the Bhartiya Nyayik Suraksha Sahita ( BNSS ) is analogous to Section 377 of the Cr.P.C., ‘in pari materia’, as it does not allow for appeals to the High Court when a sentence is imposed by a Magistrate.
The Karnataka High Court, while dismissing the department’s appeals, granted the Income Tax Department two months to file appeals before the appropriate Sessions Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
