(1.) THESE five Appeals Nos. 793 of 1989, 794 of 1989, 795 of 1989, 796 of 1989 and 797 of 1989 are filed by the complainant in C. C. Nos. 26 of 1988, 78 of 1988, 28 of 1988, 29 of 1988 and 27 of 1988, respectively, on the file of the Special Judge for the Economic Offences, Hyderabad, against the judgment dated January 3, 1989.
(2.) THE facts so far as are necessary for the disposal of these matters can briefly be stated as follows : THE appellant-complainant filed separate complaints against the respondents herein alleging that they have contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act and have rendered themselves liable for punishment under section 276DD of the Income-tax Act. THE first respondent in these appeals is a partnership firm and the second respondent is its managing partner. According to the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act introduced by the Finance Act of 1984, with effect from April 1, 1984, no person shall, after the day of June 30, 1984, take or accept from any other person any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account-payee cheque or account-payee demand draft if the amount is Rs. 10,000 or more. Section 276DD of the Income-tax Act provides a punishment for contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. According to that section, any person who accepts a loan or deposit in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, without reasonable cause or excuse, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit. In the instant case, the first respondent firm is said to have accepted deposits in excess of Rs. 10,000 by way of cash from various depositors on different dates. So, the appellant herein filed the complaints as mentioned above.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that section 276DD of the Income-tax Act provides a minimum fine which should be equal to the amount of deposit received and as the deposits received in this case exceed Rs. 10,000, imposition of fine of Rs. 50 is illegal. Thus, the apppeals are not against inadequacy of sentence but the appeals are on the ground that the sentence awarded is illegal inasmuch as a minimum sentence of fine is prescribed under the Act.