Manoj Kumar Mukherji, J. - (1.) On a complaint filed by the petitioner, the two accused/opposite parties are now facing trial in the 14th court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under sections 406, 403 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. During the trial the complainant has examined a number of witnesses and exhibited a number of documents, including certain records maintained by the IT. authorities in respect of the firm of M/s. Ghose Mazumdar & Co. These records including the I.T. returns of the firm were exhibited through P.Ws. 22 and 23 who were the officers of the said department. After P.W. 23 was partly examined and some of those documents were exhibited, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons questioning the admissibility of the records of the, I.T. Department as evidence. As such an objection was not taken when the witness was summoned and his evidence commenced, the learned Magistrate decided to take up the petition for hearing after the evidence of the witness was concluded. The petition was subsequently heard and by his order dated August 29, 1979, the learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the accused persons and held that the documents of the I.T. Dept. so far as they related to the period prior to April 1, 1964, should be expunged from the record being inadmissible in evidence but those relating to the periods subsequent thereto were legally admissible. In so deciding the learned Magistrate relied upon Section 13? of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was omitted with effect from April 1, 1964. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant moved this court and obtained the present rule.
(2.) The only question, therefore, that falls for determination in this rule is whether the learned Magistrate was justified in expunging from the record the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant in the shape of documents of the I.T. Dept. relating to the periods prior to April 1, 1964. To answer this question it would be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the I.T. Act, 1961. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 54 of the 1922 Act read as follows: " (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of this Act, or in any evidence given, or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter, or any record of any assessment proceeding, or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for the purposes of this Act, shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), no court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of any such record, or to give evidence before it in respect thereof. (2) If a public servant discloses any particulars contained in any such statement, return, accounts, documents, evidence, affidavit, "deposition or record, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, and shall also be liable to fine."
(3.) Section 137 of the 1961 Act, which Act repealed the 1922 Act, was substantially in identical terms as Section 54 of the 1922 Act. By Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1964, Section 137 of the Act of 1961 was omitted.;