M.CT.MUTHIAH & 2 OTHERS versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS &, ANOTHER

2·s.c.R. ·1247 this purpose in juxta-position with section 47 of. the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121 cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of the fondamental right guaranteed

under article 14 of the Constitution. The proceedings which took place in the course of investi- gation by the Commission up to the 26th January 1950 were valid and so also were the

proceedings during. the course of investigation which took place after the inauguration of the Constitutiol). on the 26th January 1950 under which the petitioner, as a citizen of our Sovereign Democratic Republic acquired inter

alia .guarantee of the fundamental right under article 14 of the Constitution. The result, therefore, is that .all the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner fail and Civil Ap-

peal No. 21 of 1954 must be ·dismissed with costs. Civil ·Appeals Nos. 21 and 22 of 1954 wil~ accord- ingly be diSlllissed with costs. There wm be a set off for costs. M. CT. MUTHIAH & 2 OTHERS

ti •. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS &, ANOTHER; [S. R. DAs~ ACTING C.J, V1vr:rn BosE, BHAcrWAn, J AGANNADHADAS and B. f. SINHA JI.) Constitution of India, Art. ]'/–Taxation on Income (Investiga- tion Commisiion) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947), s. 5(1)-'Whetil~ .ultra vires 'lhe· Constitution in vie1v of s. 34 of Indian lncome-Ta1r Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922) as amended by the 'Income-Tax and Bu1i- ness Profits .Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XLVlll tif 1948) and the Indian· Income-Tax (Amendment)

Act, 1954 (Act X!XXW uf 1954). H~ld (Per S .. R. DAs, .A,cTING C.J., V1v1AN iBoSE, .BHAcwATI and B. P. SINHA, JJ . .}AGANNAoHADAS J., dissenting) that s. 5.(1) of the T<1xation on .. Income (Investigation

Commission) Ac~,· .1947 (Act XXX of 1947) iis ultra vires the Constitution as it ii discriminawry and violative of the fundamental .right guaranteed by . Art. l4 of the Constitution by reason of two amenc;lments which were made in ,s. 34 of thf: Indian In~omc-Tax Act, 1922 (Act XI afl922) one ia .1948 by the .c:nac[ment of the Income-T.u: and Busine$& Profit$ Ta A. Thangal Kunju

Musaliar M. Vmliit°'halam Polti and anothlr Bhagwati]. D1umbu 20. .M. Ct. Mutkiah a.ti 2 otlrns Thi c….,;.,ioner qf ltlcomrtax, Ma,Jrasand anot/rn. SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS r19s51

(Amendment) Act, 1948 (Act XLVIII of 194~) and·the other in 1954 by the enactment of the Indian Income-Tax (Amendment) Act, 1954 I Act XXXIII of 1954). If the provisions of s. 34(1) of the

Indian Income-tax Act as it stood before its amendment by Act XLVIII of 1948 had been the only provisions to be considered, the .Court would have reached the same conclusion as it did in A. !hangal. Kunju Mu.

saliar v. M. Venkitai:halam Potti & Anr., (rl955] 2 S.C.R. 1196), but the position was materi~lly ·affected by reason of two amend· ments made in that section by two Acts, one in 1948 atid the

other in 1954. Amended s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Ace was substanti- ally different fwm the old s. 34(1) which was in operation up to the 8th September 1948. The words "if in consequence of definite in· formation which has come_ into his possession the lncome·tax Officer discovers that income, profits or gains cP.argeable to incbme·tax have escaped assessment irt any yea1 …….. " which appear in the old section were substituted by the words uif the Incom~-rax Officer has reason to \>elieve

that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the :assessee …….. income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax ·have escaped assessment …….. ". The requisites

of (i) 14definite" information (ii) which had ucome into" possession of the Income-tax Officer and in consequence of which (iii) he "dis- covers" that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had

escaped assessment,. were no longer necessary a.nd the only thing which was required to enable the Income-tax Officer to take proceed- ings under s. 34(1) as amended was that he should have reason to believe that by reason of the omission

or_ faiiu·rc on .the part of the as!iessee income, profits qr gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment for a particular year. Whereas before this amended s. 34(1) came to be substituted for the olds. 34(1) there was no com- parison between the provisions of .s. 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and s. 34( I) of the Indian Income-tax Act as it then stood, the provisions of s. 34(1) as amended after the 8th September 1948 could

stand comparison with the provisions of s, 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and the cases which were covered by s. 5 ( 1) of Act XXX of 194 7 could be dealt with under the procedure laid down in s. 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. After the 8th September 1948, therefore, even ·in the case of substantial evaders of income-tax who were a distinct class by themselves intended to be treated by the

drastic and summary procedure laid down 1'Y Act XXX of 1947, some c:;tses that were already referred by the Central Government !or investigation by the Comm'ission could be dealt with under that Act _arid other cases, though falling within the sam~ class or category,

could be dC:alt With tinder the procedure prescribed in the amended s. 34( 1) of the Indian .Y.ncome-~x Act; The persons who were thus dealt with under s, 34( 1) of the Indian Income-tax Act had available to them the whole oroeedure laid down· in that Act including the right to inspect document< and the nght to question the findings of fact arrived at 2S.C.R.

by the Income-tax Officer by the procedure of appeal and revision and ultimate scrutiny by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was denied to those persons whose cases had been referred by the

Central Government for investigation by the Commission under s. 5(1) of Ac.t XXX of 1947. Different persons, though falling under the same class or cate- gory of substantial evaders of income-tax, would, therefore, be sub- ject to different procedures, one a summary and drastic procedure and the other a normal procedure which gave to the assessees various rights which were denied to those who were specially treated under the procedure prescribed in Act XXX of 1947.

Pe1· JAGANNADHADAS J.-The class of persons falling under s. 5(1) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) is totally different from that which falls within amended s. 34 of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922

(Act XI of 1922) and therefore s. 5( 1) of Act XXX of 1947 is not unconstitu- tional as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. Suraj Mall Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another

(f 19551 1 S.C.R. 448), Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A. V. Visva- natha Sastri and Another (f 1955] 1 S.C.R. 787), A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Patti & Anr. and M. Venkitachalam Patti & Anr. \',

A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar, ([1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196), Syed Qasim Razvi v. The State of Hyderabad and Others (f1953] S.C.R. 581), Habeeb Mohamed v. The State of Hydera- bad (f 1953] S.C.R. 661) and Gangadhar Baijnath and others v. In- come-tax

Investigation Commis,:ion, etc. (A.LR. 1955 All. 515), referred to. ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Petition No. 646 of 1954. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. C. R. /agadisan, Nattnit Lal and

krishnan, (T. V. Balakrishnan. with the the Court) for the petitioners. V. Bala- permission of C. K. Dapluary, Solicitor-General of India, ( G. N. Joshi, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, with him)

for the respondents. 1955. December 20. BttAGWATI J.-This pet1t1on under Article 32 of the Constitution also raises the question about the constitutionality of section 5 ( 1) of the Taxation on

Income Investigation Commission Act, (XXX of 1947). M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The Commissioner qf Income-tax, Madras and another. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The ·Commissioner of Income-tax,

Madras and aMther Bhagwati J. (1955] The facts which led to the filing of this petition may be shortly stated. Sir M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar who carried on a flour- ishing banking business in India and foreign coun-

tries died in or about 1929 leaving behind him two sons M. Ct. M. Chidambaram Chettiar (since deceased) and M. Ct. M. Muthiah Chettiar, petitioner 3, and his widow Devanai Achi. Ct.

Chidambaram Chettiar continued the ancestral banking business and also started several commercial enterprises. He died by an accident while travelling in a plane in the · year 1954 leaving behind him his two sons, the peti-

tioners 1 & 2. Devanai Achi had predeceased him. The petitioners 1 & 2 are the legal representatives of the deceased M. Ct. M. Chindambaram Chettiar and also the representatives of their grandmother Devanai

A chi. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under section 5 ( 1) of Act XXX of 1947, referred to the Income-tax Investigation Commission C. Nos. 516, 517 and 518 relating to M. Ct. M. Chidambaram

Chettiar, M. Ct. M. Muthiah Chettiar, petitioner 3, and Devanai Achi. The Commission, after holding an enquiry in all the three cases, recorded their findings and held that an aggregate sum of Rs.

10,07,322-4-3 represented the undisdosed income during the inves- tigatjon period and directed . distribution of this sum over the several years in the manner indicated by them in Schedule A to their report.

This report was submitted by the Commission to the Government on the 26th August 1952. The Central .3overnment con- sidered the report and, purporting to act under sec- tion 8(2) of

the Act, directed by their order No. 74 (26) I.T·/52 dated the 16th September that appropriate action under the Indian Income-tax Act be taken against the assessees with a view to assess

or re-assess, the income which had escaped assessment for the years 1940-41 to 1948-49. In pursuance of the said directions of the Central Government the Income-tax Officer, City Circle

Madras, issued notices under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and made the re-assessment for the 2S.C.R. years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49 based upon the findings, of the Commission which were

treated as final and conclusive. The assessment orders for the years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1948-49 were served on the assessees on the 20th February 1954. Assessment orders for the years

1943-44 to 1947-48 were served on the 12th May 1954. The re-assessment order for the year 1942-43 was not made thaugh notices under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act had been issued by

the Income-tax Officer on the as- sessees on the 19th March 1954. It appears that these re-assessment proceedings for the year 1942-43 are yet pending and no assessment order in respect 'Of

that year has yet been served on the petitioners. In regard to , the assessment orders which were served on the 20th February 1954, the petitioners preferred on the 18th May 1954 applications to the

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under section 8(5) of the Act for references to the High Court on questions of law arising out of those re"assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer.

Similar applications were preferred thereafter in respect of the re-assessment orders which were served on the petitioners on the 12th May 1954. These applica- tions are still pending.

On the 6th Decernber 1954, the petitioners filed the present petition contending that the provisions of the Act XXX of 1947 were illegal, ultra vires and un- constitutional mainly on the ground that they were

violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. The grounds urged in support of this contention were not felicitously expressed. The petitioners ap-

pear to have mixed up the contentions which could be urged as a result of our judgments in Sw:aj Mall Mohta v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Anvther(1) and Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A. V.

Visvanatha Sastri and Another(2 ). They contended in the first instance that after the amendment of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act by Act XXXIII of 1954, which inter (l) [1955] I S.C.R. 448.

(2) (1955] l S.'C.R. 7e7. M .. Ot. Muthiaiz l1lld 2 ·olMr> ThlCommi.si…., of lncume-1/Jx, Madrssallii llll!lthrr .Bhtrgwati J. M. Ct. MuJhi.h and 2 others The Commissioner of Income-tax,

MadrD> and another Bhagwati]. [1955] alia, added sub-seetions (1-A) to (1-D) to section 34, the provisions of section 5 ( 1) of the Act became dis- criminatory, as on a reading of both the enactments,

Act XXX of 1947 and the Income-tax Act as amend- ed in 1954 showed that they ~pplied to the same category of persons and there was nothing in section 5(1) of the Act or any other provision of the said Act

disclosing any valid or reasonable classification. The provisions of Act XXX of 1947 could not, therefore, be sustained the ground of classification to avoid the mischief of article 14 of the Constirution.

The petitioners obviously relied upon our decision in Shree Meenakshi Mill's· case, supra, in support of this con- tention. The petitioners thereafter proceeded to set out their alternative contention based upon our decision

in Suraj Mall Mohta's case, supra, though it was not so stated in express terms. They contended that Act XXX of 1947 enabled the Central Government to discri.minate between one person and

another inas- much as they were authorised to pick and choose cases of persons who fell within the group of those who had substantially evaded taxation on income, that the act of the Government in rekrring· some evaders to the

Commission was wholly arbitrary and there was noth- ing to eliminate the possibility of a favouritism or a discrimination against an individual by sending or not sending cases to the Commission as between two

persons both of whom might be within the group of those who have evaded the payment of tax to a sub- stantial extent. They further contended that the procedure prescribed under the

impugned Act was substantially more prejudicial and more drastic to the assessee than the procedure prescribed under the Indian Income-tax Act. There was no reasonableness or justification that one

person should have the· advantage of the procedure prescribed by the Indian Income-tax Act while another person similarly situated should be deprived of it. They, therefore, contended that section 5(1) of the

Act was discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution and asked for the issue of a writ of 2!5.0.Jt rertiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction. or order quashing

the report of the Income-tax Investi- gation Commission dated the 29th August 1952 en- · closed as Annexure A to the ·petition and the assess- ment orders of the Income-tax Officer for the years

1940-41, 1941-42, and 1943-44 to 1948-49 as being unconstitutional, null and void and also of a writ of prohibition calling upon the Commissioner of Income- tax, Madras; respondent 1 and the Income-tax Officer,

City Circle I, Madras, respondent 2 or their subordi- nate officers to forbear from implementing the find- ings of the Investigation Commission with regard to the year l942-43. This petition was heard a:long with Civil Appeals

Nos. 21 and 22 of 1954, A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachaalam Patti & Another and M. Venkita- Musaliar (1), which also raised inter alia the cognate question about the constitutionality of

section 5 ( 1) of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 which was in pari materia with section 5 ( 1) of Act XXX of 1947. In regard to the question whether there is a ra- tional basis of cla~sification to be found in the enact-

ment of section 5(1) of the Act, the preamble and the relevant provisions of Act XXX of 1947 are the same as were considered by us in considering this question in r~lation to the Travancore Act XIV of 1124.

The words "substantial extent" also have been used in both the Acts and in the present case as in the cases of the Travancore petitioners concerned in . the Eva- sion Cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1125 (M.E.), Gauri Shanker,

Secretary, Income-tax Investigation Commission made an affidavit dated the 21st September wherein he set out the events and circumstances under which Act XXX of 1947 came to be passed.

In para- graph 4 of that affidavit he stated: "It was found that during the period of the last war large fortunes . had been made by businessmen. Controls· imposed by Government on prices and distri-

bution, were · often evaded and secret profits ~re made and. kept outside the books and often kept in- vested ia shares and real property acquired in the (I) [1955] 2 S. C.R. 1196.

M. Ct; Muthiah and 2 others The-Commissioner of Ineome-tax, Madras and another .Bhagwati ]. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and another BhagwatiJ.

[1955] names of benarnidars or in cash purchases of gold, silver and jewellery. The machinery of Income-tax · administration was unable to cope with the large number of complex cases that had to be dealt with,

during the war years and a few years after its termi- nation. As there had been a large scale evasion of tax during this period, it became necessary in the public interests to investigate

cases .of evasion of in- come-tax and bring under assessment huge profit that had escaped assessment. As a preliminary step in this direction, a demonetisation Ordinance was passed

in January sterilising the High Denomination Notes in which secret profits earned during the war years had been partly kept and calling for a statement regarding the source of such profits. This was follow-

ed by the Income-tax Investigation Commission Bill. In view of the prolonged and complicated enquiries that had to be made to unearth these secret war profits and bring them under assessment

a special Commission was constituted to enquire into the pro- fits made since 1939 but which had escaped assess.ment. I say that what is intended to in.,estigate is evasion of payment of taxation

which could reasonably be called "Substantial" and therefore the classification is real classification. The statute merely leaves the selective application of the law to be made by the

executive authorities in accordance with the stand- ards indicated in the Act itself" This affidavit furnished the background and the surrounding circumstances obtaining at the time

when Act XXX of 1947 was enacted and if this back- ground is taken into account it would be obvious that the substantial evaders of pavment of income-tax whose cases were referred by the Central Government

to the Commission formed a class by themselves and there was a rational basis of classification in the enactment of section 5 ( 1) of the Act. The argument that the terms of section 'i(l)

enabled the Central Government to pi<:k and choose the cases of p"articular individuals falling within thot category leaving the cases of other persons falling within the same category to be dealt with in accord-

2S.CR. SUPREM'E C()U:RT REPORTS ance with the provisions of section 34(1) of the Indian Income~tax Act as. it stood prior to the amend- ment of 1948 has been already dealt with in our

judgment in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v· M. Venki- tachalam Patti & Another, supra; while dealing with the corresponding provisions of section 5 ( 1) of the Travancore Act XIV of 1124 and section 47 of the

Travancore Act XXIII of 1121 and we have pointed out that so far as the Indian Income-tax Act as it was in existence on the 18th April 1947 which was the date on which Act XXX of 1947 received the

assent of the Governor-General) stood unamended by Act XL VIII of 1948, the cases of persons who fell within the· category of substantial evaders of income- tax within the meaning of section 5(1) of

the Act could not have been dealt with under the provisions of section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act and, therefore, there was no discrimination and no viola- tion of the fundamental right guaranteed under arti-

cle 14 of the Constitution. The other argument that the selection of the per- sons whose cases were to be referred by the Central Government for investigation to the Commission was

left to the unguided and uncontrolled discretion of the executive or the administrative officials also has been dealt with in that j_udgment and we need not repeat our reasons for rejecting the same.

If th~ provisions of section 34(1) of the Indian In- come-tax Act as it stood unamended by Act XL VIII of 1948 (which corresponded with the provisions of section 47 of the Travancore Act XXIII of 1121) had

been the only provisions to be considered we would have reached the same conclusion as we did in A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M. Venkitachalam Patti Another, supra. The position, however, in the

present case· is materiaHv affected by reason of the two amendments which were made in section 3.4 of the Indian Income-tax Act, one in 1948 by the enact- ment of Act XL VIII of 1948 and the other in 1954

by the enactr.11'..ltl of: Act XXXHL of 1954~ See1!ion 34 as amended by Act Y..L VJII of 1948 read as uruler; !955 M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 othen The Commissicner of IncoT111J·tax, MadraJ and

arwther Bhagwati]. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The Commissionu of Income-tax, Madras and another BhagwatiJ. [1955] "Section 34(1) : If- ( a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe

that by reason of the om1ss10n or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under section 22 for any year or to disclose fully and truly all material facts

necessary for his assessment for that year, income, profits or gains chargeable to in- come-tax have escaped assessment for that year, or have been under-assessed or assessed at too low a

rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act, or exces.siv~ loss or depreciation allowance has been computed, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omis-

sion or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the p1rt of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer has in conse- quence of information in his possession reason to believe that income, profits

or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for any year, or have been under-assessed, or assessed at too low a rate, or have been made the subject of excessive relief

under this Act, or that excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed, he may in cases falling under clause (a) at any time within eight years and in cases falling under clause

(b) at any time within four years of the end of that year, serve on the assessee, or, if the assessee is a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of

the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of sec- tion 22 and may proceed to assess or re-assess such income, profits or gains or recompute the loss or

depreciation allowance; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section : Act XXXIII of 1954 introduced into section 34

sub-sections (1-A) tu (1-D). Section 34(I-A) which is material for our purposes provided: "Section. 34 (1-A) : If, in the case of any assessee, the Income-tax Officer has reason to be!ieve'-

(i) that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have escaped assessment for any year in 2S.C.R. respect of which the relevant previous year falls wholly or partly within the period

beginning on the 1st day of September, 1939, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1946; and, (ii) that the income, profits or gains which have so escaped asses,sment for any such year or years

amount, or are likely to amount, to one lakh of rupees or more; he may, notwithstanding that the period of eight years or, as the case may be, four years specified in sub-section ( 1)

has expired in respect thereof, serve on the asses,see, or, if the assessee is a company, on the principal officer thereof, a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included

in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22, and may proceed to assess or re-assess the income, profits or gains of the asse~see for all or any of the years referred to in clause (i), and thereupon the provisions

of this Act (excepting those contained in clauses ( i) and (iii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) and in sub- sections (2) and (3) of this section) shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly:

Provided that the Income-tax Officer shall not issue a notice under this sub-section unless he has recorded his reasons for doing so, and the Central Board of Revenue is.' satisfied on such reasons recorded

that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice: Provided further that no such notice shall be issued after the 31st day of March, 1956". Amended section 34 ( 1) of the Indian Income-tax

Act was substantially different from the old section 34(1) which was in operation up to the 8th September 1948. The words "if in consequence of definite in- formation which has come into his possession the

Income-tax Officer discovers that income, profits or gams chargeable to income-tax have escaped assess- ment in any year ………. " which appear in the old section were substituted by the words "If the Income-

tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee ……. , .. income, profits or gains chargeable to in:- come-ta'x have escaped

assessment ……. ; " . The M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and another Bhagwati]. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The Commissiontr of lncome-.ttzx,

Madras and another Bhagwati]. SDPREME C'OORT REPORTS [19551 requmtes of (i) "definire" information (ii) which had "come into" possession of the Income -tax Officer and in consequence of which (iii) he "discovers" that in-

come, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment, were no longer necessary and the only thing which was required to enable the Incom~­ tax Officer to take proceedings under section 34 (1)

as amended was that he should have reason to be- lieve that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee income, profits or gains chage- able to income-tax had escaped assessment for a parti-

cular year. Whereas before this amended section 34( 1) came to be substituted for the old section 34 ( 1) there was no comparison between the provisions of section 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and section 34(1) of

the Indian Income-tax Act as it then stood, the pro- vi~ons of section 34(1) as amended after the 8th September 1948 could stand comparison with the pro- visions of section 5 ( 1) of Act XXX of 1947 and the

cases which were covered by section 5( 1) of Act XXX of 1947 could be dealt with under the procedure laid down in section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. After the 8th September 1948, therefore, even in the

case of substantial evaders of income-tax who were a distinct class by themselves intended to be treated by the drastic and summary procedure laid down by Act XXX of 1947, some cases

that were already re- ferred by ' the Central Government for investigation by the Commission could be dealt with under that Act and other cases, though falling within the same class or category, could be dealt with under the pro-

cedure prescribed in the amended section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The persons who were thus dealt with under section 34(1) of the Indian Income- tax Act had available to them the whole pmcedure

laid down in that Act including the right to inspect documents and the right to question the findings of fact arrived at by the Income-tax Officer by the pro- cedure of appeal · and revision and

ultimate scrutiny by the Income~tax Appellate Tribunal which was· denied tt> those persons whose cases had been. refeued by the Central Government for investigation by the 2 S.C.R.

Commission under section 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947. The juxta-position of dates is also very instructive. It may be noted that in Act XXX of 1947 as it was originally enacted, the period

up to which the Central Government could make the references to the Commission for investigation was laid down in section 5(1) of the Act to be 30th June 1948. This period was extended to the 1st September 1948

by the Taxa- tion on Income (Investigation Commission) Second Amendment Act, 1948 (XLIX of 1948). Act XLIX of 1948 was passed by the Central Legislature and received the assent of the Governor-General on the

8th September 1948, the s,ame day on which Act XL VIII of 1948 which amended section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act also received the assent of the Governor-General. Both these Acts, viz., Act XLVIII

of 1948 and Act XLIX of 1948 were passed simultane- ously and obviously with a view to bring the provi- sions of section 5(1) of Act XXX of 1947 and section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act in tune with each

other. It appears to have been realized that the substantial evaders of income-tax in respect of whom the Central Government had prim a f acie reasons for believing that they had to a substantial extent evaded

payment of taxation on income could not have their cases referred for investigation by the Commission after the 30th June 1948, that having been the time limit originally prescribed in section 5(1) of the Act.

It also appears to have been felt that the period could . not possibly be extended beyond the 1st September 1948 with the result that apart from the cases of sustantial evaders of income-tax which

were referred by the Central Government for investi- gation to the Commission up to the 1st September 1948 there would be a large number of such cases which though they could not be referr.ed for

investi- · gation to the Commission would have to be dealt with under the ordinary provisions for taxation of income that had escaped assessment available in section 34 and the cognate sections of the Indian Income-tax

Act. As section 34(1) then stood, the requisites of 25-85 S. C. India/59. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and another Bhagwati]. I9D5 M. Ct. Muthish

and 2 oth1rJ v. Tiu Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and atroth~ Bhsgwali]. 126C [1955] definite information coming into the possession of the Income-tax Officer in consequene of

which he dis- covered that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment would certainly net have availed the Government in tracking down these substantial

evaders of income-tax and it ap- pears, therefore, to have been thought necessary that section 34( I) of the Indian Income-tax Act should be amended so as to enable the Income-tax Officer to take

proceedings thereunder if he had reason to beli:ve that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee …….. income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment for the rele-

vant period. An amendment of section 34(1) in this manner would enable Government to pass on the re- quisite information which they had obtained in regard to the substantial evaders of income-tax to the In-

come-tax Officers concerned and ask the Income-tax Officers to take proceedings against those evaders of income-tax under the amended section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. That appears to have been

the real object of the amendment of section 34(1) of the Indiau Income-tax Act with effect from the 8th September 1948. The Commission would proceed with the references which were made to them up to

the 1st September 1948 and the Income-tax Offi.;ers concerned would take the requisite proceedings under section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act as amend- ed after the 8th September 1948 against all persons

whose income, profits or gains had escaped assessm·ent including substantial evaders of income-tax whose casrs would certainly have been referred by the Central ·Government for investigation to the Coµ1mis-

sion if it had been possible for them to do so before the first September 1948.. After the 8th September 1948, there· were two procedures simultaneously in operation, the one under Act XXX of 1947 and the

other under the Indian Income-tax Act with referenc.c to persons who fell within the same class or category viz~ that of the substantial evaders of income-tax. After the 8th September 1948, therefore, some persons

who fell within the class of substantial evaders of 2S.C.R. income-tax were dealt with under the drastic and summary procedure prescribed under Act XXX of 1947, while other persons who fell within the same

class of substantial evaders of income-tax could be dealt with under the procedure prescribed in the Indian Income-tax Act after service of notice upon them under the amended section 34(1) of the Act.

Different persons, though falling under the same class or category of supstantial evaders of income-tax, would, therefore, be subject to different procedures, one a summary and drastic procedure and the oth~r a

normal procedure which gave to the assessees various rights which were denied to those who were specially treated under the procedure prescribed in Act XXX of 1947. The l_egislative competence being there, these pro-

visions, though discriminatory, could not have been challenged before the advent of the Constitution. When, however, the Constitution came into force on the 26th January 1950, the citizens obtained

the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Con- stitution including the right to equality of laws. and equal protection of laws enacted in article 14 thereof, and whatever may have been the position before the

26th January 1950, it was open to the persons alleged to belong to the class of substantial evaders there; after to ask as to why some of them were subjected to the summary and drastic procedure prescribed in

Act XXX of 1947 and others were subjected to the normal procedure prescribed ip section 34 and the cognate sections of the Indian Income-tax Act, the procedure prescribed in Act XXX

of 1947 bemg obviously discriminatory and, therefore, violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. It would be no answer to suggest that those sub-

stantial evaders whose. cases were referred by the Central Government for inves;tigation by the Com- mission before the 1st September 1948 formed a class by themselves leaving others though belonging to the

same class or category of substantial evaders of M•·OI. Mrilllidh and2 othm Thr Go1nmwio111r of1mo~, MadrM arid anothlr Bhagwati J• M; Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. TM Commissioner Qf Income-tax,

Madras and another Bhagwati J. [1955] income-tax to be dealt with by the ordinary procedure prescribed in the Indian Income-tax Act without infringing the fundamental right guaranteed

under article 14 of the Constitution. A similar argument had been advanced before us by the learned Attorney- General appearing for the Commission in Shree Meenakshi Mills' case, supra.

The ground which he had urged was "that the class of persons dealt with under section 5(1) of Act XXX.of 1947 was not only the class of substantial tax dodgers but it was a class of persons whose cases the Central Government, by

1st September, 1948, had referred to the Commission and that class had thus become determined finally on that date, and that that clas$ of persons could be dealt with by the Investigation Commission under

the drastic pz:ocedure of Act XXX of 1947 while sec- tion 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act as amended empowered the I11come-tax Officer to deal with cases other than those whose cases had been referred

under section 5(1) to the Investigation Commission …… " Mahajan, C. J. who delivered the judgment of the Court dealt with this argument at page 795 (') as under: "As regards the first

contention canvassed by the learned Attorney-General it seems to us that it can- not stand scrutiny. The class of persons alleged to have been dealt with by section 5 ( 1) of the impugned

Act was comprised of those unsocial elements in society who during recent years prior to the passing of the Act and made substantial profits and had evaded payment of tax on those profits and whose

cases were referred to the Investigation Commission before 1st September, 1948. Assuming that evasion of tax to a substantial amount could form a basis of classification at all for imposing a drastic procedure

on that class,, che inclusion of only such of them whose cases had been referred before 1st September, 1948, into a class. for being dealt with by the drastic pro- cedure, leaving other tax evaders to be dealt with

under the ordinary law will be a clear discrimination for the reference of the case within a particular time (!) [1955] l $.C.R. ·787, 795. 2S.C.R. has no special or rational nexus with · the necess.ity

for drastic procedure …… " These observations were made to repel the particular argument of the learned Attorney-General but they did not lay down that in fact section 5(1) was con-

fined to such a limited class. We are further supported in this view by the fact that by the later amend111ent of section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act effected by Act XXXIII of

1954, the· time limit for the issue of notice under sec- tion 34(1-A) of the Indian focome~tax Act has been fixed as the 31st day of March 1956. It is, therefore, clear that the period miginally fixed for the reference

of the cases of substantial evaders of income-tax for investigation by the Commission, viz., 30th June, 1948 or the extended period, viz., 1st September, 1948 pro- vided in section 5(1) of Act XXX of

1947 or the period fixed by the new section 34(1-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act., viz., 31st day of March 1956 was not a necessary attribute of the class of substantial evaders of income-tax but was merely an accident and

a measure of administrative convenience and was not an element in the formation of the particular class of substantial evaders of income-tax. It follows, therefore, that after the inauguration of

the C,onstitution on the 26th January, 1950, the per- sons whose cases were referred for investigation by Central Government to the Commission up to the 1st September, 1948 could, to use the words of Mahajan,

C. J. in Shree Meenakshi Mills' case, supra, at page 794 ask: " …… why are we now being dealt with by the discriminatory and drastic procedure of Act XXX of 1947 when those similarly

situated as ourselves can be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer under the amended provisions of section 34 of the Act? Even if we once bore a distinctive label that distinction no

longer subsists and the label now borne by us is the same as is borne by persons who can be dealt with under section 34 of the Act as amended; in other words, there is nothing uncommon either in properties

or in characteristics between us and those evaders · of M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others T ht Gommissiontr of Income-tdx, Madras and another Bhagwat. J. 1955 – M. Cl. Mulhiah ad2 oU-1 . ~.

TM Commi1,;o,,,, of I11eonu-lax, Madra10nd QMJ/ur Bhagwali]. [1955] income-tax who are to be discovered by the Income- tax Officer under the provision~ of amended section 34" . We may

also add, adopting the same phraseology, that in our judgment, no satisfactory answer can be returned to this query because the field on which the amended section 34(1) operated from

and after the 26th fanuary 1950 induded the strip of territory which was also occupied by section 5 ( 1) of Act XXX of 1947 and two Siubstantially different laws of pr<>- cedure, one being more prejudicial to the assessee

than the other, could not be allowed to operate on the same field in view of the guarantee of article 14 of the Constitution. The result, therefore, is that barring the cases of persons

which were already concluded by reports made by the Commission and the directions given by the Central Government under section 8(2) of Act XXX of 1947 culminating in the assessment or re-

assessment of the escaped income, those .cases which were pending on the 26th January 1950 for investiga- tion before the Commission as also the assessment or re-assessment proceedings which were pending on, the

26th January before the Income-tax Officers concerned in pursuance of the directions given by the Central Government under section 8(2) of the Act would be hit by article 14 of the Constitution and

would be invalidated. The R. C. Cases 516, 517 and · 518 relating to M. Ct. M. Chidambaram Chettiar, M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar and Devanai Achi were pending before the Commission on the 26th January 1950, the

report therein not having been made by the Com- mission till the 26th August 1952 and the Commission had, after the 26th January 1950, no jurisdiction to complete the investigation and make their report, the

whole procedure . being violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioners under article I4 of the Cons ti tu tio n. This position was not in terms argued before us by

the learned counsel for the petitioners. It Was. urged in th!' first in;tance that the case was governed by our decision in Shree Meenakshi Mjl/s' case, supra, 011 2S.C.R. 11.65 the basis that by reason

of the applications to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, made by the pet1t10ners under section 8(5) of the Act for reference to the High Court on questions of law arising out of

the Income-tax Officer'.s re-asses3ment orders above referred to, the proceedings under Act XXX of 1947 had not become final and the petitioners were, there- fore, entitled to relief on the ratio of our judgment in

that case. Reliance was placed in support of this position on the provisions. of section 8(4) of the Act: "In all assessme.nt or re-assessment proceedings taken in pursuance of a direction

under sub-sec- tion (2), the findings recorded by the Commission on . the case or on the points referred to it shall, sub- ject to the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6), be final; but no proceedings taken in pl,lTsuance of such

direction shall be a bar to the initiation of proceed- ings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)". Sub-section (5) has reference to the applicacion made

by the assessee to the Commissioner of Income-tax to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the assessment or re-'assessment orders and sub-section (6) has reference

to the power of the Commission either of their own motion or on the ap- plication of the person concerned or of the Central Government to cmrect clerical or arithmetical mis- takes in their report or errors therein arising from

any accidental slip or omission ……….. These provi- sions contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), however, would not make the findings recorded by the Com- mission any less final.

These findings were in- vested with finality subject to this that if the High Court, on reference under sub-section (5), gave any opinion which would require a revision of those find-

ings or if any clerical or arithmetical mistakes were found or errors were detected arising from accidental slip or omission within the meaning of $Uh-section (6) which also required some a iterations in the findings,

these findings would be divested of their finality and would have to be revised accordingly. The' assess·· ment or re-assessment orders made by the Income- M. Ct. Muthiala llff(f 2 othet•

v. The CorrrmiJsi11111r of ~w-lllx, Mllllruad antJlhtr Bha11111oli J. M. Cl. MuJhiah and 2 othlrs · v. The Commissio1t1r of Income·t~, Madras and another · Bhagwati J. SUBREME COURT REPORTS

[1955} tax Officers based upon those. findings would also be binding on the assessees subject only to the result of the reference, if any, made to the High Court on questiofl.I ()f law arising out of such orders;

If this was the true position it could not be urged that by rn:J$bn of the. pendency of the applications for reference to the High Court the proceedings under Act XXX of. 1947 had not been concluded against the

petitioners and it could not· also be urged that when Act XXXIII of 1954 was enacted introducing sec- tion 34(1-A) in the Income-tax Act with effect from the 19th July 1954, the R.C. Cases ·516 to 518 were

pending and the whole proceedings under Act XXX of 1947 against the petitioners were invalidated. As a matter of fact the report had been made by the Commission against the petitioners as

early as the 26th August 1952, the Central Government had given the directions under sectior 8(2) for re-assessment of the petitioners on the 16th September 1952 and the re-assessment orders for all the years except the year

1942-43 had been made by the Income-tax Officer against them by the 12th May 1954 which was long before the Act XXXIII of 1954 came into operation. All these re-assessments had thus become binding on

the petitioners and were not affected by the mere pendency of the applic;ations for reference to the High Court made by them to the Commissioner of lncome- tax, Madras, under section 8(5) of the Act .

. There is also a further point to be considered in this c.onnection and it is that whatever discriminatory procedure the petitioners were subjected to by reason of the reference of their cases by the Central Govern-

ment to the Commission under section 5(1) of the Act had been completed long before the Act XXXI!l of 1954 came into operation and the only further proce- dure which they would be subjected under the provi-

sions of Act XXX of 1947 would be that of a ref- erence to the High Court on questions of law arising out of the orders of re-assessment if these applica- tions were granted either by the

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, or by the High Court on further application. In the event of such reference being ,_. 2S.C.R. made, the petitioners had the additional advantage

of ·having their references heard by the High Court in a Bench constituted of not less than three Judges as contrasted with the normal procedure obtaining under seGtions 66 and 66-A of

the Indian lncome-taX Act under which the references could be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. Whatever was, therefore, the procedure to which the petitioners would be subjected

under Act XXX of 1947, after the coming into operation of Act XXXIII of 1954 it was, in~tead of being prejudicial to them, really ad- vantageous to them, and following our decisions in

the cases of Syed Qasim Rawi v. The State of Hydera- bad and Others(1) and Habeeb Mohamed v. The State of Hyderabad{2), we are of the opinion that the further proceedings, if any,

which could be taken under the provisions of Act XXX of 1947 would not be at all discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution.

The only relief which the petitioners would have been entitled to in that event would have been one in regard to the re-assessment proceedings for the year 1942-43 which were pending before the

Income- · tax Officer by . virtue of the notice under section 34 issued by him to the petitioners on the 19th March 1954. Reliance was placed up9n a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported

in .Gangadhar Baij- nath and others v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, .etc.(3) in support of this position. The learned Soli- citor-General did not contest . this position but under-

took on behalf of the Income-tax authorities that they will not proceed against the petitioners for the re-assessment for the year 1942-43 in pursuance of the notice under section 34 served upon them in that

behalf. This would have been the only relief to which the petitioners would have become entitled on the main contention urged by them in their petition. The petitioners are, however, entitled to

succeed on the :alternative contentions which were raised by them as (!) [1953] S.C.R. 589. (2) [1953] S.C.R. 661. !3) A.LR. 1955 All. 515. M~ Cl. Muthiah an1f2 o•Mr• T lie· Commissioner

of Income-tax, Madras and another BMgwati'J. M. Ct. MuJbiaJi and 2. others v. The CommilsioM of lncomt.J4X, Madras01J4 """'"" Bhagwati ]. [1955] the result of the conclusion whicl'. we have reached

above in regard to the proceedings pending before the Commission having become discriminatory after the 26th January 1950 by reason of, section 5 ( 1) of the A.ct having become unconstitutional

after the inau- guration of the Constitution on that date. In the result, the petitioners will be entitled to the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the report of the Income-tax

Investigation Commission dated the 29th August 1952 and the ~ssessment orders of the Income- tax Officer for the years 1940-41, 1941-42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49 as being unconstitutional,

null and void, and also to the issue of a writ of prohibition against the respondents from implementing the findings of the Investigation Commission referred to above with regard to the year 1942-43 and we do order that such

writs do issue against the respondents accordingly. The respondents will pay the petitioners' costs of this petition. ]AGANNADHADAS J .-This petition raises the ques- tion whether section 5(1) of the Taxation on Income

(Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947) (here:nafter referred to as the Investigation Commission Act) is unconstitutional as offending article 14 of the Constitution

and has therefore be- come void on the coming into force of the Constitu- tion ·on the 26th January, 1950. This question was specifically left open in the two previous decisions of

this Court, -.·'.z. in Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri(') and S/zree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri('). Almost the identical ques- tion arose in the Travancore Appeals(") .in which judg-

ment has just now been delivered. The provision with which we were concerned in those appeals is section 5(1) of Travancore Act XIV of 1924 which is almost in identical terms as section 5(1) of the In-

vestigation Commission Act. ·we have held that this section of the Travancorc Act did not, on the coming (!) [1955] I S.C.R. 448. (2) [19.oSJ ! S.C.R. 787. (3) A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v.

Aul~orised Official, J:T., [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196. 25.C.R. SUPREME COURT· REPORTS into · opcraticti ' of . the, Constitution, 'Tio late : article · , 14 therrof , and that. :it; accdrdinglr continued to ' . be valid. This rault· was· based on; the: .following. conclusions. · · (a) The: apre.ssion•.t'a.personwho. has ,fo a snl:i-

stantial cxte1it;:•cva0ed payment of<,taii:ation ·.on in- come" has' to .be. interpreted · .. having regard · ·to the batkground ·; . •Or· , . the; i. circumstances ., that,.': preceded at the time thel section.> came< to· be. enacted ' and .which were~discloscd .in .the :i.Jlidavit."filed·"in this Cotirt by the Secretary of. ·the! Investigation"· Conhnission ·and ·so interpreted• ,. the 1word,1. ''.s'ubstantial'"; .:indicates. with

reasonable certainty the class of persons intended . to be subjected to·•the·dra!tic:· procedtm! .-of the: Act.' (b) ·The 'selective :application 'of1the·law•to.'•persons in this: class .. canribt be .. considered . invalid since the selection is • guided by .. the 'very objective·' set• out · iri section.5(1)itself.:.

"'"•· ·• "'"' "" ……. (c),The fact" that some persons may Csc:ape·the.:ip- plication .. of .. the law ·,fa not necessarily .. destructive of the dlicicy of •the provision;" . i."

· >. ·" "'. · . ·.' · It was also: held, on :i. •comparison with·.section-47:.of the Travancore ·Act XXIII of. 1121; corresponding' to section.· 34 '.of·the>.Indian1·Income'.tax .:Act;• 1922,.(XI. of ·1922) as it stood 1prior to 'its',:iniendment· in•'.1948, that .. the persons ; wbo fall under the .. class of sub-. stantiab evaders of. income-tax within the , meaning •·of

section 5 ( l) · of the 1 • Investigation ·Commission cAct: were not .interided .. ,,to '' be·1and. could not have i: been ·'.:dealt with· under the'.prcivisions … of,isection 47 of.the T;avan.i core 'Act -.XXIIL.of,,.1~21. and ·that I therefore: there

would be no.-discriminatory· · :ipplieatiorr of: ·two parallel t:-statu:~ryg~o;~=;,'.'c~~Lr h~~~e~:: •t~~· ~aj~rl~ ~f th~ Court has;;;taken.1 the•.vlew~: that section:, 5(1) of.the Investigation '·'"Commission .. , Act· . his,,] :become'. uncon- stitutianal ' by' the" date of the;" Constitution' in compa-. rison ,.:·with•: 'section·;.,34, ·of· ·the .Incotrie,taxL.-Act. as amended. in:~1 ·l948;;" Itw'as .. poirlted 1 out.• that· section· 47. of :i•the i Travancore• i Act' XXIII ·.of' 112hwhich' rwas.the same … 'as sectionl3-Lof1•the""1ncome-tax 'Actc:•as it:stood from, 1939,, tD• 1943 ,,;did1 not'' undergo •'any·:!' amendmmt by ·tho· date 1 coftlie … Constitutioll'" ·bubmritiriuedr.,·as brio 195.i

M. Cl.MuJ/iia4 a>rd 2 •'""' Tu CommisJ;.,,,,,. ofl=-taz, .&!a<l=a>rd OJWl/1n jag""1U1dNiJas ]. M. Ct. MuJhiall and 2 others The Commissioner of /tuom8"-tax, Mlldras and another Jagannadhadas J,

[1955] fore and it is said that this makes a difference. I feel constrained, howevei, with the utmost respect, to hold, on a careful ,consideration that there is no room for making any such distinction which is relevant for

the purposes of this question. Undoubtedly it is true that section 34 of the Income-tax Act as it stood prior to 1948 is more restrictive i.n its operation than the same section as amended in 1948. But I am unable to

see how the class falling under sec!ion 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act is still not different from that which falls within amended section 34 of the Income-tax Act. Under section 5( I) of the Investigation Commission

Act the requirement is that . the Central Government has "pr.ima fade reasons for believing that a person has to a ,substantial extent evaded payment of taxa- tion on income". This is quite different from the

criteri0n applicable under the amended section of the Jn,,otne-tax Act. In the first place, section 34 of the Income-tax Act relates to cases of evasion how- ever small, while section

5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act relates only to large-scale evaders comprised within the terl}1 "substantial evasion". Secondly, the belief of the Government as to the exist-

enc~ of evasion need not satisfy any rigorous standard because it need not be based on any material directly connected with the suspected evasion. It is enough if it is a "prima facie reason to believe" which

having regard to the scheme of the Act would cover cases m which tell-tale appearances may call for probing and effective investigation. This may well be no more than "well-grounded reason

io suspect". This is quite different from the standard to "reason to believe" required of the Income-tax Officer under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. "Prima facie reason to believe"

and "reason to believe" are as different from each other as "prim a facie proof" and "proof". therefore "reason to believe" is something definitely higher than "reason to suspect". Indeed, it is diffi-

cult to compare the standards required under the two sections. Though no doubt the power exercisable by the Central Government under section 5 ( 1) of the 2S.C.R. Investigation Commission

Act and that exercisable by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 of the In- come-tax Act have this in common that both have reference to "reason to believe", the standard of belief and the basis of belief is expressed in such

different terminology that it is not possible to compare the two and equate the two as being the same. Nor indeed can it be posited that every case of the class comprised in section 5(1) of the Investigation Commis-

sion Act must necessarily fall within section 34 of the Income-tax Act. Apart, however, from any question as to the com- parison between the two sections and as to the stand- ards and basis

of the belief required, once it is accepted (as has been done in the Travancore Appeals(1) that substan'tial evasion is a definite legal standards determinative of a distinct class, it is clear

that the class comprised thereunder is not identical with the class comprised under section 34 of the In- come-tax Act. In the alternative, it is a select, group of a wider class.

If the smaller grouping is on a rational basis relevant to the policy of the Act, it would form a distinct class by itself for purposes of article 14. It is necessary at this stage to bear in mind the

entire scope of the Investigation Commission Act in order to determine what the class is which is con- templated and covered by it. Five main features may be noticed of the scheme of the Investigation

Commission .Act . (1) It relates only to those in respect of whom the Government have "prima facie reason to believe that there has been substantial evasion of tax". (2) The belief does not result straightaway in

proceedings .for reassessment (unlike under section 34 of the Income-tax Act) but the question of reassess- ment (i.e., reopening of the assessment) depends on investigation into the correctness of that belief. The

first step in the scheme is section 5(2) which contem- plates that the investigation may result in substantial ([) A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. Authorised Official, I.T., [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1196.

M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The CommiJSioner of Income-tax, Madras and another Jagannadhadas J. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 other1 v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and another

agannadhadas J. [1955] evasion not being revealed. If so the further pro- ceedings would be dropped on a report by the Com- mission to that effect. Hence no reassessment starts in such a case.

(3) An effective procedure for investigation is provided to bring out all the necessary and relevant facts and material to substantiate the evasion and quantum thereof. ( 4) Proceedings for reassessment are

taken on! y on the emergence of such material and on a report to that effect and that too on a further direction by the Government as to the exact nature of the proceedings to be taken and as to the exact period to be covered

falling within the limits of 31st December, 1938 and 1st September, 1948. (See sections 8(2) and 5(3) of the Investigation Commission Act). (5) A reference could be made by the Gover'1ment

to the Commission only up to a specified date line statutorily determined. If all these facts which are essential part of the scheme under the Investigation Commission Act are borne

in mind it becomes apparent that the class contemplated under section 5(1) of the lnvestigz.tion Commission Act for reassessment is totally different from that which could be got at either under

sec- tion 34 of the Income-tax Act as it stood between 1939 and 1~48 or as it stands since 1948. One has only to compace the provisions in the Income-tax Act relating to the means by which the normal in-

come-tax authorities can get information or obtain material which might lead to a reopening "of the assess- ment under section 34 of the Income-tax Act to ap- preciate that the class

contemplated under section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act cannot be the same. The only provisions in the income-tax law for the purpose are sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Income-

tax Act. The primary scheme of the Income-tax Act is that the basic materials for the assessment are ibe returns and the accounts or other evidence to be fur- nished by the 1Ssessce himself (sections 22 and 23 of

the Income-ta.•: Act) or the checking material that may be availa'.ile from the returns and the accounts 2S.C.R. of other assessees who have transactions with this assessee. It may also consist of information received

from other public authorities, etc., as well as the examination of persons appearing to have intercon- nected transactions. The Income-tax Officer has not the power to probe into suspecious features or

obtain and seize material in verification or support thereof. All that normally he can do, where there is room for grave suspicion is to reject the accounts and make his assessment on the basis of "best judgment"

(see section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act) which can- not be sustained if it is a wild guess based on mere susp1C1on. Now, the whole scheme of the Investiga- tion Commission Act is

obviously inspired by the realisation that the normal machinery available to the Income-tax Officer for the reassessment of large scale suppressed income is not adequate. All the same, the Legislature realising that drastic investiga-

tion into the affairs of assessees on seemingly well- grounded suspicions might . result in serious encroach- ment of personal liberties, has not chosen to vest the Income-tax Officer with any such powers of investiga-

tion and has confined this drastic procedure to eva- sion of income during the period commencing 1st January, 1939 to the 1st September, 1948 ( vide sec- tions 8(2) and 5(3) of the Investigation Commission

Act) and limited the same to cases of substantial evasion. In considering, therefore, what is the ambit of the class contemplated by section 5 ( 1) of the In- vestigation Commission Act,

it is necessary to re- member these features of the scheme. It would fol- low that the class comprised in. section 5(1) is the class of substantial evaders whose evasion appeared to the Government to call for a high-powered machi-

nery for effective investigation, not available to an ordinary Income-tax Officer functioning under section 34 of the Income-tax Act. So understood it is quite dear, to my mind, that section 5(1) of the

Investigation Commission Act relates to a class totally different from what can be brought in under section 34 of the Income-tax Act as it, either stood before; or stands after,. 1948.

That this .class was M. Ct. Mitthiah arid 2 others v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and another Jagannadhadas J. M. CJ. MuJhiak and 2 others v. The Commis;ioner of Income-tax,

Madras and another Jaganr.adhadas J. [1955] really contemplated to be distinct is also indicated by the following provision of section 8(4) of the Investigation Commission Act. "No proceedings

taken in pursuance of such direction (direction made under section 8(2) for re- assessment) shall be a bar to the initiation of pm- ceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax

Act". This seems to indicate the possibility of concurrent assessment proceedings as against any particular as- sessee under section 34 of the Income-tax Act as also under section 8(2) of the Investigation Commission

Act. The idea appears to be that section 34 proceed- ings may go on in respect of such income of the as- sessee the escaping of which comes to the knowledge of the officer by the normal procedure, and that the

reassessment under the Investigation Commission Act is expected to be in respect of such evaded income which is to be discovered only as a result of regular and effective investigation.

It has been suggested in the course of arguments that no objection could be taken to Government taking only sufficient powers for investigation in appropriate cases, without any question arising as to

discrimination or classification but that this cannot justify discriminatory procedure as regards actual reassessment. That raises a different aspect of the matter which will be presently dealt with.

Assuming however that substantial evaders con- templated under section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act fall also within the larger class of evaders who fall within the class contemplated by

section 34 of the Income-tax Act as it stands, what follows? The selective group under section-5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act is determined with reference to the criteria ( 1) that they are substantial

evaders of income-tax, and (2) that they are assessees within the period 1939 to 1948 which is well-known to be the period of war profits and black-marketing and in respect of whom the Government get informa-

tion before 1st September, 1948, justifying investiga- tion. This is by itself a well-defined class and the 2 S.C.'R. classification has a reasonable relation to the object to be achieved, viz., the catching up of the escaped

black-market war profits, for assessment. It is to be assumed that the Government would have made their references to the Investigation . Commission of all the cases of persons about whom they have the requisite

belief or information before 1st September, 1948. If there are any war profiteers of that period against whom there was no information by then and against whom information becomes available later, it will be

probably found -that the information so received is not such as to enable the ordinary Income-tax Officer to rope him in. It may turn out that he has evaded once for all. But even if, in some cases, the Income-

tax Officer could by the ordinary process get the es- caped income of such assessees for rea&sessment, that by itself is no ground for thinking that a classifica- tion of substantial war profiteers who have evaded

iI).come-tax and against whom there was information up to a specified date is not in itself a valid classifica- tion. It is well-recognised that a classification other- wise reasonable is not

invalid by reason of the classi- fication not being comprehensive. Jn Joseph Patsone v. Commont11ealth of Pennsyl- vania (1) the Supreme Court of the United States of America laid down that-

"a state may classify with reference to the evil to be prevented, and that if the class discriminated against is or .reasonably might be considered to define those from whom the evil mainly is to be feared, it

properly may be picked out. A lack of abstract symmetry does not matter. The question is a practi- cal one dependent upon experience …….. It is not enough to invalidate the law that others may do the

same thing and go unpunished, if, as a matter of fact, it is found that the •danger is characteristic of the class named". Again in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Ernest Parrish(') the same Court stated-

"This Court has frequently held that the legisla- (1) 232 U.S. 138 144; 58 L. Ed. 539, 543. (2) 300 U.S. 379, 400; 81 L. Ed. 703, 713. 26-85 S.C. India/59 M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 othm

v. The Commissioner of Income-ta.'<, Madras and another Jagannadhadas J. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The Commissiotrlf of Income-tax, Madras and another Jagannadhadas .7· [1955]

tive authority, acting within its proper field, is not bound to extend its regulation to all cases which it might possibly reach. The legislature 'is free to recognize degrees of harm and it may confine its

restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest'. If 'the law presumably 11its the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might

have been applied'. There is no 'doctrinaire require- ment' that the legislation should be couched in all embracing terms". It is substantially the above view of permissible classification for the purposes of article 14 that has

been recognised by this Court in Sakhawat .1li v. The State of Orissa( ') where this Court laid down as follows: "Legislation enacted for the achievement of a particular object or purpose need not be all embrac-

ing. It is for the legislature to determine what categories it would embrace within the scope of legis- lation and merely because certain categories which would stand on the same footing as those which are

covered by the legislation are left out would not render legislation which has been enacted in any manner discriminatory and violative of the fun<la- , mental right guaranteed by article 14 of the Consti-

tution". Even if therefore section 34 of the IncomNax Act as amended in 1948 is wide enough in its ambit to catch up any and every case which could be dealt with under section 5(1) of the Investigation Commis-

sion Act, it is still a distinctive and selective group. out of a larger group and is a class by itself determined with reference to the criteria above indicated. It is no objection to the constitutionality of that classification

that some out of them who may have been left out may be taken up later for being proceeded against under the amended section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The Class falling within the scope of the Investigation

Commission Act is a class closed with reference to the date-line, 1st September, 1948, and it appears to me difficult to envisage the possibility of any member (I) (1955] i S. C.R. 1004, 1010.

2S.C.R. of that class being available to be dealt with by the Income-tax Officer under the amended section 34 of the Income-tax Act which came into operation from after that date-line except by imputing mala ft.des to

the Government in the selective application of section 5(1)- of the Investigation Commission Act. It is true that the date-line was changed by legislature from 30th June, 1948 to 1st September, 1948. But it was

an essential part of the whole scheme of the legisla- tion that there was to be no reference beyond a date- line to be fixed by the legislature, so as to limit the application of the Act.

Hence it is also an attribute of the class contemplated by the Act. I am aware that there are observations in Surai Mall Mohta's case<1) and Shree Meenakshi Mills' case(2 ) which appear not to have accepted the idea of the

class being with reference to a date-line. But the actual decision in Suraj Mall Mohta's case( 1 ) was based on the distinction between section 5 ( 4) and section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act and the

consequential parallelism between the class falling under section 5(4) of the Investigation Commission Act and section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act. In Meenakshi Mills' case(2) the decision was rested on the

parallelism between section 5(1) of the Inve3tigation Commission Act and section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act as amended in 1954. The decision in neither of these cases was based on any final determination of

the scope of the class contemplated by section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act. The actual deci- sions in those cases are of course binning but not necessarily all the reasoning therein.

Besides, with great respect, the relevancy of the date-line in section 5(1) as having been related to the then contemplated date for the lapse, in 1948, of the controls under the Essential

Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, (Act XXIV of 1946) was not noticed. The principle of Sakhawat Ali's case( 8 ) was not also by then laid down by this Court (that case having been decided

later in November, 1954). ( ) [1955) I S. C.R. 448; (2) [1955] I S~ C.R. 787. (3) [J9551:1 S. C.R. !004, 1010. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The Commissioner -of Income-tax, MatlraJ and

another Jagannatlhatlas J. M. Ct. Muthiah aM 2 others v. The Commissioner of Jncome·la:t, Madras and another JagannodhaJas J. [1955] Further, even if the date-line is not an essential

part of the classification under section 5 ( 1) of the Investigation Commission Act, the other four essential features of the scheme of the class contemplated in section 5(1) as set out by me above are by themselves

enough to constitute a complete and rational differen- tiation of the class comprised under section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act from that under section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act as amended in

1948. If on such a classification some cases of sub- stantial evasion happen to have escaped the machi- nery of the Investigation Commission Act, that would not invalidate the classification

on the principle accepted in Sakhawat Ali's case( ). I am in any case unable to visualise the reasonable possibility of any person falling within the category contemplated under section 5 ( 1)

of the Investigation Commission · Act, be- ing taken up for reassessment under section 34 of the Income-tax Act as amended in 1948 and consequently of two parallel reassessment proceedings relating to

such persons remaining pending by the 26th January, 1950, so as to bring about discriminatory operation between them and to render section 5(1) of the In- vestigation Commission Act ultra vires in respect of

such pending matters. It appears to me, therefore, that section 5(1) of the Investigation Commission Act and the other sections following thereupon cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground of absence

of reasonable classification. One other matter has been relied upon as beirig relevant. It was pointed out that the amendment of section 34 of the Income-tax Act in 1948 was simul-

taneous with the amendment of section 5(3) of the Investigation Commission Act, extending the time for a reference under section 5 ( 1) by the Central Gov- ernment up to the 1st September, 1948.

It has been suggested that this clearly shows the intention of the legislature to the effect that after the 1st September, 1948, all cases which might have fallen under section 5 ( 1)

of the Investigation Commission Act are left to be dealt with under section 34 of the (l) [1955] I S. C.R. 1004, JOJO. 2S.C.R. Act as amended. It appears to me with respect that there is no basis for this inference.

On the other -hand it appears to me (if what I have said above as being the scheme of the Investigation Commission Act is correct) that the legislature deliberate! y limited the application of the Investigation Commission Act by

a date-line, realising the seriousness of its continued operation. It did not want to perpetuate the drastic provisions thereof to any new cases in view of the fact that the official war period ended and controls had

been lessened by the above date-line, if not totally abolished. It may be mentioned that by proclamation, the war situation was formally terminated as from the 1st April, 1946, and that the Control Orders under

the Defence of India Act ceased to be operative from the 1st October, 1946, and that the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, was passed in sub- stitution thereof. This 1946

Act was intended origi- nally to be in operation only until March, 1948. (See /oyal Agarwala v. The State(1 ). The date-line of 1st September, 1948, in section 5(1) seems to be related

to this situation. It appears to me that with the full consciousness that any new cases of the same category, if any, are not likely to be caught up under the normal procedure, the legislature merely purported

by virtue of the amended section 34 of the Income- tax Act to remove certain lacuna in the normal machinery, which had been noticed and reported upon by the income-tax administration and by the Investi-

gation Commission, with reference to section 34 as it stood between 1939 to 1948. (See paragraph 22 of the General Report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission issued in 1948 making its recommenda-

tions for the improvement of the machinery at page 8 of that report and Appendix A thereto which would show that amendment of section 34 was not connected with the extension of the date for making references

under · section 5 ( 1) of the Investigation Commission Act). I am unable, therefore, to assume that the simultaneous enactment of section 34 of the Income- tax Act and the amendment of Investigation Com-

(\) [\952) S. C.R. 127, 130. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others .v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras and ·anothn- Jagannadluzdas J. M. Ct. Mulhian and 2 othtrs v. TM Commis!ioner ef Income-tax,

Madras and """'"" JagOllllad/iadas J. [1955] mission Act in 1948 have a bearing on the question at issue. Undoubtedly the re-assessment proceedings under the Investigation Commission Act appear to deprive

the assessee of certain procedural advantages. He is deprived eif an appeal on facts to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Income-tax Appel- late Tribunal. He is given the right of appeal only

on points of law by means of a reference to the High Court. But such reference is to be heard by a Bench of not less than three Judges. Now, once there is a valid classification the nal:Ure and extent of the

actual discrimination which results under the scheme of legislation relating thereto is largely a question of policy, which the courts have nothing to do with, except possibly where

the discrimination has no reasonable relation to the policy and purpose of the classification. The policy underlying the Investiga- tion Commission Act is, as already stated, to catch

up for reassessment large scale evasions of income-tax of the war period. It is obvious that having regard to the magnitude of the interests that would be in- volved therein, it was

quite legitimate that the matters concerned therewith, should be entrusted to a highly-qualified and high-powered authority, and not to the ordinary machinery. No grievance can be made if the legislature tought fit not to entrust

the responsibility for fact-finding to the normal machi- nery involving lesser qualifications and experience. It is true that the investigation might have been placed in the hands of one authority and the fact-

finding on the material so gathered in the hands of another authority or that at least there might have been provided one appeal on facts also to a high- placed authority like the High Court. It may also

appear somewhat disquieting that the same body is invested both with the power of investigation and the power of fact-finding and that there is no appeal provided as against its findings on facts.

But these are all matters of policy and cannot be, said to be either unreasonable or unrelated to the purpose and policy of the classification. Investigation is a com- l 2S.C.R. prehensive

term and it will be seen that the investi- gation procedure itself under the Act is in two stages, one before the authorised official a:t which the assessee is not entitled to be represented and the

other before the Investigation Commission at which the assessee is entitled to . be represented by a pleader, a registered accountant of an authorised employee (vide section 7(3) and the proviso thereto).

These two stages may be taken roughly, though not neces- sarily, to indicate two parts of the investigation, (1) the process of probing into the evasion and collecting the material in

support of it, and (2) arriving at con- clusions with reference to the material so collected and presented. The latter is the judicial part at which the Commission is directed under section 7(2)

to follow the principles of the Indian Evidence Act and to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of rebutting evidence and generally to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The procedure

relating to this stage is assimilated to a judicial en- quiry in a larger measure than is the procedure before the Income-tax Offi,cer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in respect of whose proceedings there

is no provision that thev must follow as far as practicable the principles of the Indian Evidence Act. (See section. 23 of the Income-tax Act). It is well- settled that the assessment

proceedings by the Income-tax Officer under section 23 of the Income- tax Act-and hence also under section 34 thereof- are not regulated by the technical standards of evi- dence though

of course they cannot be based on caprice or suspicion. It would, therefore, appear that accor.ding to the scheme of the Investigation Com- mission Act, the judicial part of it approximates

much more to judicial standards than the assessment proceedings by the income-tax authorities and that though in theory there is a combination of the func- tions of an investigator and the judge in the Investi-

gation Commis~ion, in normal practice it is likely to be kept .distinct by the appointment of an authorised official to conduct the first porticn. It is also to be remembered that the combination of the investigator

M. Cl. Muthialr tllft/ 2 others v. Thi CommisswMr of Income.tax, Madras and another Jagannadhadas ]. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The Commisii<mer of lncome·tmt. Madras and """'""

]agannad/uJdas ]. [1955] and judge is inherent even in the normal income-tax machinery where the Income-tax Officer and the Assistant Income-tax Commissioner are in the nature of Judges interested in their own cause.

It has been suggested that there is something opposed to ordinary canons of judicial procedure or natural justice in the matter of making relevant docu- ments available to the assessee

in the proceedings before the · Investigation Commission. It appears to me, with respect, that this is based on a misappre- hension. It is true that section 7 ( 4) of the Investi-

gation Commission Act says: ''No person shall be entitled to inspect, call for, or obtain copies of, any documents, statement or papers or materials furnished to, obtained by or pro-

duced before the Commission or any authorised offi- cial in any proceedings under this Act; but the Com- mission, and after the Commission has ceased to exist such au\hority as the Central Government ·may in

this behalf appoint, may, in its discretion, allow such inspection and furnish such copies to any person." and section 6(8) of the Investigation Commission Act says: "All material gathered by the

authorised official and materials reference under sub-section ( 1) brought on record ;it such stage may think fit". Commission or the accompanying the of section 5 may be as the Commission

But these provisions have to be read subject to the proviso to section 7 ( 4) and to the opening part of section 7(2) of the Investigation Commission Act. The proviso to section 7 ( 4) is as follows:

"Provided that, for the purpose of enabling the person whose case or points in whose case is or are being investigated to rebut any evidence brought on the record against him, he shall, on application made

in this behalf and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed by Rules made under this Act, be furnish- ed with certified copies of documents, statements, papers and materials brought on the record .by the

Commission''. Further, the opening part of section 7(2) says: 2 S.C.R. "In making an investigation under clause (b) of section 3, the Commission shall act in accordance with the principles of natural justice, shall follow as

far as practicable the principles of the Indian Evi- dence Act, 1872, and shall give the person whose case is being investigated a reasonable opportunity of re- butting any evidence adduced against him …….. ".

The above provisions preclude the possibility of the Commission. pushing in into the final record on which the report is to be based any ex parte material to which the assessee has had no access.

These also preclude the possibility of depriving him of the use of any relevant material in the Commission's possession which the assessee may call for. All that section 7 ( 4) implies is that the assessee is not entitled to a

roving inspection of the material gathered by the Investigation Commission in the course of investiga- tion, which may relate to the affairs of various other persons. Such a provision is not opposed to natural

justice for even in the mai.ter of criminal judicial trials the accused is not entitled to a roving inspec- tion of the material gathered by the police during investigation. (I may

notice, with very great respect, tha.t the observation in Suraj Mall Mohta's case(1 ) at page 464 that "the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and (that therefore)

all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed, i.e., in other words, the assessee should be entitled to inspect the record and all relevant documents'' seems to have failed to note that section

37 ( 1) specifically limits the judicial character of the proceedings to the purposes covered by sections 193, 196 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and also that the said section vests

in the Income-tax authorities, the powers of a court only for specified purposes). If, therefore, in view of all these circumstances the Legislatlire thought fit to entrust the combined res-

ponsibility for investigation and fact-finding to a single high-powered and highly-qualified body · con- sisting of three members of whom one is or has been a Judge of the High Court and made their findings of

(I) [19551 1 s. c. R. 448. M. Ct. Muthiah and 2 others v. The Commissio•er of Income-tax, Madras and anothlr Jagannadhadas J. M. Ci, Mlllhioh and 2 olJierj v. The Commissioner of [lt;omd-ltvt,

Mi>irasand """'"" Jaganmrd/iadat J• [1955] fact final, without pmviding for access to the regular heirarchy of appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and a Bench of two members of the Income-tax Ap-

pellate Tribunal, there appears to I:..: nothing unrea- sonable therein. On the other hand cii.ere are counter- balancing featw-es with reference to the composition of the Commission and the statutory standards by

which the judicial part of its proceedings have to be governed. am, therefore, unable to feel that the discriminati9n brought about in the procedure relat- ing ~o assessment calls for any such adverse reaction

as to be. a reasonable basis for founding thereon an inference of unconstitutional inequality. However, as I have already said above, this appears to be ulti- mately a question of policy.

Once the classification is found to be justified and reasonably related to the clearly under!y.ing policy of the Investigation Commis- sion Act, I am unable to feel that section 5{1) of the

Investigation Commission Act can be struck down as ultra vires in relation to its supposed concurrent operation with sectior. 34 of the Income-tax Act as ameuded in 1948, I hold, therefore, that section 5(1}

of the Investigation Commission Act was not hit by article 14 of the Constitution notwithstanding amend- ment of section 34 of the Income-tale Act in 1948 and that it continued to be valid.

On all other points urged on behalf of the peti- tioners, I agree with the view expressed in the judg- ment delivered by my learned brother Justice Bhag- wati on behalf of the majority

of the Court. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to deal with them. In the result, in my opinion, this petition must be dismissed with costs except as regards the incomplete reassessment

for 1942-43 for which the learned Solicitor-General has given an undertaking not to proceed. with it under the provisions of the Investiga- tion Commission Act, as stated in the judgment of

my le:i.rned brnther. ORDER Bv THE CoURT : In accordance with the Judgment of the majority the petition is allowed and. it is ordered that a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the

2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPO~TS report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission dated the 26th August 1952 and the assessment orders of the Income-Tax Officer for the y.ears . 1940-41,

1941"42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49, and that a writ of prohibition do i$sue against the resP,ondents restrain- ing them from implementing the findings. of the In- vestigation Commission

with r~g;µ-~ to the year 1942-43. The respondents do pay the peritioners' costs of their petition. AHER RAJA K.HIMA v. THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA- [VIVIAN BosE, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and

CHA:NDRASEKHARA Arr AR JJ l Appeal against Acqu#tal….-Scqpe of-PoU}ers of Court-Guiding principles-Code .of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s. 417 Pel"' BosE and OitANDRAsEKHARA

A1YAll JJ, (VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. dissenting). It is well settled that the High' Court should not set aside an order of acquittal under s, 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply

because it differs from the trial Court as to the appreciation of the evidence ; there must be substantial and com- pelling reasons for doing so. · Whete the trial Court takes a reason- able view of the facts of the case, interference is not justifiable un- less there are really· strong reasons for holding otherwise. Amar Singh v; State of Punjab ([1953] S.C.R. 418) and Surajpal Singh v. State ( f19521 S.C.R. 193), referred t,o.

The accused in a criminal case must be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt and, therefore when he offers a reasonable expla- nation of his conduct, althougl;i he cannot prove it, that explanation should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that it is false.

Conseq11ently,. in a case where an accused person, charged under ss. 302 and 447 of the lndian Penal Code, repudiated his confession at the earliest opportunity as having been made under Police threats administered to l>im at night while in, jail custody and there was evidence to show that the Police had access to hiru there, and there was nothing to displace his statement that he was

threatened by them, the finding of the Sessions Judge that the t:onfession was not voluntary in character was fair and reasonaok and in the absence of auy compellihg reason the High Court shotild not have set aside the order of acquittal.

M- Ct. Mulhiah and 2 others ·v. The' Commission., of ltu:of/14-tax, Madras and another Jaganlladhadas J. Decmiher 22.