FRIENDS UNION OIL MILLS Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises questions of law, which at the first flush appear to be tenable, but which on closer scrutiny fail as being devoid of merits. THIS petition is at the instance of the accused, seven in number, in C.C. No. 439 of 1974 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur. A complaint was filed by the Income-tax Officer, F-Ward, Trichur, before the said court under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act of 1961 and Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is a firm and accused Nos. 2 to 7 are its partners. In paragraph 2 of the complaint it is stated as follows:

(2.) THE petitioners filed an application before the court below under Section 245(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), for short the Code, for their discharge, on the ground that the cognizance of offence under Sections 193 and 196 of the Penal Code is barred under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code. THE Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on January 7, 1975, overruling the objections raised by the petitioners. It is this order that is virtually in challenge in the present petition. THE petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code, which are the relevant sections for filing a revision. Perhaps, to meet an argument against the maintainability of the revision, based on Section 397(2) of the Code, an attempt is made to masquerade the petition as one under Section 482 of the Code also.

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the prosecution under Section 277 is barred, since it is hit by Section 279(1 A) of the Act, which reads as follows :