Use Of Black Money Or Tax Evasion In Dowry Cases Has To Be Reported To Income Tax Authorities: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has issued several directions to the State Government for eradication of the menace of dowry practices.
The Court, inter alia, observed that when a person has no financial means to give a dowry or is not able to substantiate the source of the dowry, may be an indication of the fact that there is use of undisclosed income, black money or tax evasion which will be required to be reported to authorities.
The Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed, “A person who does not have financial status/means to give the dowry and is also not able to substantiate the source of dowry given, may be indicative of fact that the allegations are incorrect or that there is use of undisclosed income or back money or there is tax evasion. Use of black money or tax evasion is required to be reported to authorities under the Income Tax Act as the same does not stand protected under Section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Where there is no substantive evidence with regard to giving or receiving dowry then only on the basis of the statement of an offender, criminal prosecution under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act should not be permitted.”
Advocate DK Ojha appeared for the Applicants whereas Government Advocate appeared for the Respondents.
In pursuance to its previous order dated May 8, 2024, the Director, Woman Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow had filed an affidavit annexing the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (‘1999 Rules’). The Court perused several rules in the 1999 Rules, including, inter alia, the role, powers and functions of a Dowry Prohibition Officer.
As regards the role of Dowry Prohibition Officer, the Court observed, “It is further to be noted that Rule 6 (12) of Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (as amended by Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition (First Amendment) Rules, 2004) provides that Dowry Prohibition Officer shall render assistance to police investigating complaint filed under the Dowry Prohibition Act or to the court in the trial of the case. In none of cases coming up before this Court, where the police are investigating, it is found that any assistance is being rendered to police by Dowry Prohibition Officer.”
The Court also asked the State Government to explain why the list as mandated by the Dowry Prohibition (maintenance of lists of presents to the Bride and Bride Groom) Rules, 1985 (‘1985 Rules’) and 1999 Rules were not being maintained by the Dowry Prohibition Officer. “Prima facie, this Court feels that the Dowry Prohibition Officer are not following the direction of law as they are not ensuring that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Rules framed there under are followed in letter and spirit by parties to marriage.”, the Court said.
The Court also asked the State Government to examine why the offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act is not being proceeded as per the Rules of 1999 and why the principles provided under Rule 6 (4) of 1999 Rules are not being resorted to in letter and spirit.
The Court highlighted that despite the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 having been enacted in 1961, the progress regarding eradicating the practice of dowry has been slow and, therefore, such illegal practice of dowry is required to be addressed by the government.
The Court directed the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer to disclose the data as to awareness programs initiated through radio, television, newspaper, and NGOs, and how the citizens have been involved in the prevention of dowry in the last two years. Further, the Court directed to disclose the status of hoardings in public places with regard to ante-dowry movement have been put in place, including marriage halls and venues.
It was also directed that the Chief Dowry Prohibition Officer should provide the details as to how many complaints have been received by the Dowry Prohibition Officer under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules in last two years and in how many cases the prosecution has been lodged in last two years by the Dowry Prohibition Officer.
The Court further directed, “The Director General of Police shall file an affidavit in respect of following:- i) As to why the source of dowry alleged to be paid by bride or her family members to the groom or his family members is not being investigated more particularly when huge amount in cash beyond limit prescribed under the Income Tax Act, is involved. ii) why the utilisation aspect of dowry by the groom or his family members is not being investigated. iii) The huge cash amount given in dowry or otherwise are proceeds of crime, why the aforesaid proceeds of crime are not being recovered by investigating officer during investigation more particularly in view of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and same being handed over to the wife.”
Lastly, the Court directed that the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act are required to be examined by the Dowry Prohibition Officer and prosecuted by the Dowry Prohibition Officer.
Cause Title: Ankit Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Appearances:
Applicants: Advocates D.K. Ojha and Vikas Kumar Ojha.
Opposite Party: Government Advocate