9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Private complaints were filed separately by the Income-tax Officer, Madurai, against the accused. The short facts of the case in C. C. No. 110 of 1986 are as follows : The first accused is Messrs. Selvam Brothers, a partnership-firm, doing business in iron and other materials at Keezha Masi Street, Madurai. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the partners in the abovesaid first accused firm. The first accused used to purchase iron materials from Messrs. Iron and Steel Traders situated at No. 77, Sembudoss Street, Madras.Thayumanaswami, who was employed in the first accused fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1 to 5 and exhibits P-1 to P-24 were marked. The accused have not examined any defence witness nor marked any document on their side. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty and acquitted them as according to the lower court, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. One other ground on which the lower court has acquitted the accused is that for the same allegations, the complainant has filed C. C. No. 48 of 1985 before the lower court and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on technical grounds and filed a fresh complaint against the accused again in C. C. No. 110 of 1986. The lower court found that the second complaint is barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81-82 showing that the taxable income was Rs. 21,340 and accordingly paid the income-tax under section 143(1) of the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that these payments were not shown in the ledger and other accounts of the first accused-firm and, therefore, all the accused had conspired together with the common intention to defraud the Department by furnishing false accounts and maintaining false records. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint under these sections of the Act against all the accused. Sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 279 of the Act. The prosecution has examined P. Ws.-1 to 5 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-26 and the accused have not examined any defence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst accused on January 21, 1980, whereas in the present complaint in C. C. No. 110 of 1986, the demand draft is stated to have been given on January 29, 1980. According to the prosecution, the date January 29, 1980, is the correct date and in the previous complaint, the date of the demand draft was given as January 21, 1980, for a sum of Rs. 20,000. The accused in the previous case in C. C. No. 48 of 1985 were discharged under section 321(a), Criminal Procedure Code, by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court would cover the provision under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court following the judgments reported in (1) In re Raja Goundan [1966] 2 MLJ 518 ; (2) Kalgoriram v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Patna 442 ; (3) Empe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
