(1.) THE criminal revision is directed against the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in M. P. No. 3269 of 1979 in C. C. No. 2652 of 1974, on the file of his court, refusing to discharge the 2nd accused without trial. THE criminal miscellaneous has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2652 of 1974, in so far as the 2nd accused is concerned.
(2.) THE revision case and the misellaneous petition have come to be filed in the following circumstances : THE Income-tax Officer, Madras, filed a complaint against M/s. Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (accused No. 1) and its managing director, Sri M. R. Pratap (accused No. 2) for non-payment within the prescribed time of income-tax deducted from the salaries of the employees of the company. THE case was taken on file against the two accused under s. 276B read with s. 200 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), and rule 30 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), and process was issued to the accused.
(3.) MR. N. C. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner (2nd accused). contends that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to take note of the pronouncement of this court in the earlier petition, Cr. M. P. No. 25 of 1976, that a managing director or director of a company can be held to be a principal officer of the company only if the ITO has served a notice of his intention to treat the managing director or director as principal officer of the company. In this case, according to the counsel, it is not only the contention of the petitioner, but the admitted stand of the complainant also that the ITO has not issued any notice to the petitioner informing him of his intention to treat the petitioner as the principal officer of the company. His further argument is that the decision in M. R. Pratap v. V. M. Muthukrishnan. ITO [1977] 110 ITR 655 (Mad)., will have no application to the facts of this case, because s. 276B and s. 277 of the Act stand on different footings. Arguing contra, the learned counsel for the Income-tax Department states that the petitioner will undoubtedly constitute the principal officer of the company, in view of his position as managing director and, therefore, he can also be proceeded with under s. 276B for delayed payment of the tax collections. His further contention is that the ratio in M. R. Pratap v. V. M. Muthukrishnan was well be applied to this case also.