P. Kuknhappa Nair and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]p.s. gopinathan, j.1. in a prosecution for offence under section 277(ii) read with section 278b of the income-tax act, 1961, the revision petitioner pleaded guilty before the additional chief judicial magistrate (eo), ernakulam in c.c. no. 148 of 1990. the learned magistrate recorded the plea of guilty. the revision petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fine of rs. 50,000. the revision petitioner preferred crl. a. no. 241 of 2001. when the criminal appeal came up before the vth additional sessions judge, ernakulam, the revision petitioner argued that in the light of the decision in prem dass v. ito : [1999] 236 itr 683 (sc) : [1999] 5 scc 241, the charge should not have been framed. after setting aside the conviction and sentence, the learned additional sessions judge remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order of remand in appeal, this revision petition was filed.2. having heard either side, i find that the question as to whether the ratio of the decision in the above reported case is applicable to the case on hand is a matter that can be examined by the trial court. the appellate court had not at all in any way erred in remanding the matter to the trial court. there is no illegality or impropriety also. i find no merit in the revision petition. accordingly it is dismissed.