2003 (4) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Offence under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Even assuming that the signature of Nalini has been affixed by any other person, it cannot be said to be a forgery, unless Nalini says that she has not given any consent to that person to affix her signature, as revealed in illustration K of section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. But the statement recorded by the Income-tax Officer from Nalini does not say that she never authorised anybody to affix her signature. Therefore, in law, it cannot be said to be a forgery. Moreover, the matter relates to the year 1981-82 and for all practical purposes, the firm had its partners as Jayaraman, Nalini and Susila Rajagopal and the authorities having held a partnership concern, no offence is made out. I feel the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused need not be disturbed.

Summary

The High Court of Madras dismissed the revision filed by the Income-tax Officer against the orders discharging the accused of offences under various sections. The accused partners were held not guilty of forgery as the authorities confirmed their partnership despite one partner denying her signature. The court upheld the decision, stating no offence was made out.