INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. BALAJI CHIT FUNDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. THE summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. THE respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. THE petitioner has filed petitions to amend the complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. THE Magistrate held that when the case is pending, amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. THE petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint.