CHAPARALA KRISHNA BRAHMAM Vs. GUDURU GOVARDHANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the first accused in T. R. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1953 and C. C. No. 8 of 1953 on the file of the Stipendiary I Class Magistrate, Guntur. THE comnlainant in all these cases is one Guduru Govardhanaiah who was a partner of the accused in a firm called Chaparala Krishna Brahman and Co. Guntur. THE substance of the allegations made by the complainant in p. R. C. No. 1 of 1953 is this. THE partners in the firm fell out and there was litigation between them in the civil Courts in Guntur. With a view to cause loss to the complainant the accused prepared false accounts. He also filed before the Income-tax Officer form bearing the date 4-2-1952 for the renewal of the registration of the firm. That form is a forged one. In order to fasten responsibility for his false accounts and also liability to income-tax on P. W. l and the complainant, the accused probably antedated some renewal form, signatures on which of the complainant and P. W. 1 may have been obtained by the accused in 1949 or 195D before the partners fell out: he wanted to cheat all concerned, THE accused thus committed offences under Sections 467, 471 and 420, I. P. C.

(2.) IN the complaint in P. R. C. No. 2 of 1953 it was alleged 'inter alia':

(3.) MR. Jayaranja Aiyar the learned advocate for the petitioner argued the question whether an Income-tax Officer is a Court very exhaustively and I shall examine his contentions seriatim. (I am however not taking up his arguments in the same sequence in which he advanced them). Section 195, Criminal P. C. so far as is now material, enacts,