2023:JHHC:44568 1 Cr.Rev. No.836 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 836 of 2017 --------- Satyaban Roy, Son of Late Satyandra Kumar Roy, Resident of Baramuri O.C.P. Mugma Area, E.C.L. P.O., Chirkunda, P.S.-Chirkunda, Dist.- Dhanbad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. C.P. Bhatia, S/o-Sri J.N. Bhatia, Income Tax Officer, Ward No.II(2) @ Income Tax Office, MADA Building P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kr. No.1, Advocate Mr. MAC Lincon Emmanuel Kujur, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Vijay, Advocate Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate ----------- 11/Dated: 13th April, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No.41 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (Economic Offence), Dhanbad in C.O. Case No.44 of 2004 whereby and whereunder learned trial court has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 277 of I.T. Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years along with a 2023:JHHC:44568 2 fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. However, learned appellate court has modified the aforesaid sentence to R.I. for 1½ years and fine of Rs.2,500/- with default stipulation. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this criminal revision is that the petitioner was employed with ECL and he had filed income tax return with TDS Certificate with his due signature on 27.09.2001 and claimed a refund of Rs.11,460/- due to excess deduction of tax. It is further alleged that the petitioner claimed a relief under Section 89(1) of I.T. Act in respect of repayment of Housing Loan, payment of interest and rebate under section 88 of I.T. Act, thereafter a refund of Rs.13,690/- was granted to him. However, the said TDS Certificate submitted for the refund was later found not genuine and the same was not issued by the employer. It is further alleged that no tax was deducted from the salary of the petitioner, resulting in recovery of the said refund amount along with interest. Thereafter, a show-cause letter was issued to the petitioner, in reply to which, he admitted his signature on verification and disclosed the name of one A.K. Chatterjee as an abettor and thereafter a prosecution was initiated against the petitioner. Hence, the complaint was filed. Submission on behalf of petitioner:- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial court and upheld by 2023:JHHC:44568 3 learned appellate court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was held guilty for misstatement of Income Tax Return in respect of loan towards purchase of house and the amount of Rs.13,690/- was saved as income tax, which has already been deposited. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for six months during trial of the case. The occurrence is of the assessment year, 2001- 2002 and now more than two decades have lapsed and thereafter the present petitioner was not found guilty for any other subsequent such activities. Therefore, sentence of 1 ½ years awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by the learned appellate court may be altered/modified to the extent of imprisonment already undergone. Submission on behalf of State:- 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has defended the judgement on merits but so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned in the factual aspect of the case, an appropriate order may be passed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the amount found to be evaded in tax return has already been deposited by the petitioner and he has also undergone R.I. for six months. Therefore, the petitioner has served the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute. 2023:JHHC:44568 4 7. In view of above discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment is upheld on merits but with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above, i.e., the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed on merits with modification in the sentence as stated above. 9. The petitioner is on bail, as such, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 10. Pending I.As., if any, is disposed off. 11. Let a copy of this order along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned immediately for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Pappu/- 13/04/2026