9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Nali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,420,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The allegation is that A-1, Balaji Chit Funds is a company of which A-2, A-3 and one Nalini are the partners. (b) The allegation against the accused is that a declaration was filed by A-2, on behalf of A-1 under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act for continuation of registration of A-1 in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prosecution." On receipt of the summons, the accused filed a petition stating that the prosecution is not maintainable because, against the assessment order, they have already filed an appeal and the assessment has been approved by the appellate authority and even the adjudicating authority has held that the firm as such is in existence and Jayaraman, Nalini and Susila Rajagopal are the partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horised 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
