S VAIDYANATHAN INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. B MATHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is by the complainant, namely, the Income tax Officer, City Circle i (1), Truchirapalli, against an order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, on November 19, 1984. A complaint under sections 120b, 193 and 196, Indian penal Code, and sections 276c (1) and 277 of the Income tax Act, 1961, was filed by the Income tax Officer, City Circle I (1), Tiruchirapalli, on January 19, 1984, under the following circumstances against the six respondents, the first respondent being a partnership firm and the other respondents being the partners thereof. THE firm came into existence on April 1, 1973, and has been carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of indigenous medicinal preparations. After the income tax assessments of the first accused firm for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 were completed on September 29, 1976, and February 3, 1977, respectively, it came to light that the first accused firm had a current account and a fixed deposit account for Rs. 90, 000 with the state Bank of Mysore , abhiramapuram Branch, Madras. Neither the fixed deposit account of Rs. 90, 000 nor the current account balance of Rs. 352. 52 was disclosed by the first accused firm in the balance sheet filed by the accused along with its return of income for the year ended march 31, 1975, nor was the interest received from the abovesaid deposits disclosed in the return of income for the year ended March 31, 1976. THE original current account opening form obtained from the bank clearly shows that the application was for opening an account in the name of the first accused firm and that it was signed by all the five partners, namely, respondents No. 2 to 6 and they were to operate the account jointly and severally. THE current account and the fixed deposits and the interest received in respect of the fixed deposits have been completely kept out of the books of account of the first accused firm maintained for income-tax purposes. When respondent No. 2 was examined on oath by the Income tax Officer on February 15, 1983, about the aforesaid current account and fixed deposit account, he deposed that the money did not belong to the first accused firm. When he was questioned further, he made admissions to the contrary regarding the current and fixed deposit accounts and the fact of those accounts having not been recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against all the respondents under the sections aforementioned. THE Magistrate examined the complainant as well as the other members of the Department. THEreafter, the respondents raised a plea that, in the circumstances of the case, they deserved to be discharged. THEir plea was accepted by the Magistrate and it is that decision arrived at by the Magistrate which is challenged in the present revision. Three main points are raised before me by counsel for the respondents and they will be considered seriatim those points are : 1. THEre is no valid complaint filed before the magistrate.

(2.) FROM the records, it is shown that only the second accused has submitted the return ; and all statements alleged to be false have been made solely by him and, therefore, no charge can lie against the other respondents.