TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls pending against him and the same in C. A. Nos. 24 etc., of 1987 were dismissed by this court by order dated June 29, 1995, as having abated. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1987 against the 2nd respondent, viz., M. Srinivasan is also dismissed as having abated. C. A. Nos. 22, 23 and 32 of 1987 were filed against the said T. V. Rajamanickam and C. A. No. 30 of 1987, was filed against the said R. Dhanabagyam. EOCC No. 1343 of 1983, relates to T. Vinayatha Mudaliar and Sons and Co., Salem. EOCC No. 1344 of 1983 relates to T. Vinayatha Mudaliar and Sons. EOCC No. 1361 of 1983, relates to National Hotel, Salem, and EOCC No. 812 of 1984, to Sri Venkateswara Weaving and Sizing Mills, Salem. The trial court has framed charges against the accused on the allegations that the respective accused, being the partners of the respective company/firm, filed declarations under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, a return of income and statement, etc., relating to the respective firm for the assessment year 1979-80 and in so far as EOCC No. 1343 of 1983 is concerned for the assessment year 1980-81 also and acted in collusion and conspiracy with a view to deceive the Income-tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e accused asked the other respective partners, viz., P.Ws.-1 and 2, and the said Mohanraj, through the panchayatars to put the signatures in Forms Nos. 11, 11-A and 12 to file the declaration to the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1979-80 and as, stated earlier in so far as T. Vinayatha Mudaliar and Sons and Co., Salem, was concerned, for the assessment year 1980-81 also. However, they refused to sign the same. But, subsequently, the other partners came to know that the respective accused/respondent filed Form No. 12 with their forged signatures. Since they have not actually put their signatures, they sent petitions to the income-tax authorities, complaining against the concerned accused. Then, the Income-tax Officer examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and Mohanraj, who stated that the signatures found on those forms were not put by them and thereafter the Income-tax Officer examined P.Ws. 3 and 4, the panchayatars who stated that in the panchayat the request of the accused to put their signatures in the form was not acceded to by P.Ws.-1 and 2 and Mohanraj. P.W.-6, Kuppusami, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, examined P.W.-5, Menon, Income-tax Officer also, who rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged. Aggrieved over the similar findings in the above four judgments, the present appeals have been preferred by the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(1), Salem. Mr. Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant, took me through the entire evidence and contended that while the prosecution was able to establish that the signatures found in Form No. 12 of the respective firms were not those of P.Ws.-1, 2 and Mohanraj and as such they are forged signatures and such being the case when the forms were presented by the respective accused alone and since the accused alone will be getting the concessional rate of income-tax, it must be presumed that the accused alone committed forgery of signatures, fabricated false documents and by filing the same induced the Income-tax Officer to pass a wrong assessment order. He also contended that admittedly there was dispute among the partners and the evidence of the panchayatars, viz., P.Ws.-3 and 4, would clearly establish that the accused concerned, requested the signatures of other partners in the presence of panchayatars, which was in vain, and that from the above evidence, it could be inferred that the accused alone had forged the signatures an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s well as the defence have to be taken note of. P.W.-1, Thangavel Mudaliar, himself admits in his cross-examination that one other partner by name Srinivasan (2nd respondent in C. A. No. 23 of 1987) and other clerks obtained the signatures of the partners in cheques and in income-tax return forms and it was the practice for the past so many years. As has been stated earlier, the said Srinivasan, an accused, died during the pendency of the appeal. Even according to the evidence of P.W.-1, there is no material whatever available against the accused in these cases, referring to their involvement in the process of getting signatures from the other partners. The same fact was admitted by P.W.- 2, Chellammal, also. P.W. 4, Palanisamy Mudaliar, one of the panchayatars also did not implicate the accused. He only deposed that Srinivasan presented a petition to the panchayatars complaining that Ellappa Mudaliar refused to sign Forms Nos. 11, 11-A and 12 and requested the panchayatars to direct him to sign the forms. He also stated in his evidence that Srinivasan gave a letter requesting the panchayatars to obtain signatures of P.W.-1, Thangavel Mudaliar, and Mohanraj, who has been examined a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|