Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Accused No. 3 in E.O.C.C. Nos. 659 to 662 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences No. I), Egmore, Madras, has filed these petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid cases quash the same.

2. In E.O.C.C. No. 659 of 1988, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner and four others under section 120B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The allegations in it are briefly as follows :

4. With a view to wilfully evade tax and to defraud the exchequer and to deceive the Income-tax Officer, acting in concert and furtherance of common intention, all the accused conspired to fabricate false evidence in the shape of books of accounts with a view to using them as genuine evidence in the income-tax assessment proceedings, to deliver a false return of income of the first accused for 1976-77 with false supporting statements based on fabricated books of accounts to dishonestly induce the Income-tax Officer to deliver an assessment order, on such false return and statements determining the total income of the first accused at an amount lower than the real amount and thus have committed offences punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34, 193, 196 and 420 thereof and section 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in one series of acts which are connected and form the same transaction. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and for the aforesaid purpose and in the course of the same transaction, all the accused have for the purpose and in the course of the same transaction, all the accused have for the purpose of using as genuine evidence in the income-tax assessment before the Income-tax Officer for 1976-77, intentionally fabricated false books of accounts of the first accused and thus committed offences punishable under section 193, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and all the accused have corruptly used the aforesaid false account books as genuine evidence in the course of the assessment proceedings for 1976-77 and thus committed an offence punishable under section 196, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act and all the accused have deceived the Income-tax Officer and induced him to deliver the assessment order for 1976-77 on the false account books, returns and statements and have committed offences punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and all the accused wilfully attempted to evade tax, penalty or interest impossible under the Act on the firs accused by making false entries in the account books of the first accused and by being in possession of such books of account and have thus committed an offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act read with section 278B thereof and all the accused delivered to the Income-tax Officer on or about August 4, 1976, a last return of income of the first 1976-77 and a false trial balance, profit and loss accounts, statement of total income and statement of sundry creditors and thus committed offences punishable under section 277 read with section 278B of the Act and that the second accused made a false verification in the return of income for 1976-77 and thus has committed offences punishable under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

5. On similar allegations for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the respondent has filed complaints in E.O.C.C. Nos. 660 of 1988, 661 of 1988 and 662 of 1988 before the same court under section 120B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C, 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the aforesaid assessment years also. In these complaints, it is alleged that original returns were filed on August 5, 1977, August 28, 1978, and August 9, 1979 and in respect of them, assessment were completed on September 26, 1977, October 19, 1978 and September 12, 1979, respectively, and the search was conducted on June 7, 1980, and the revised returns for assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 were filed on October 16, 1980, and the total concealed income for all the four assessment years was Rs. 41 lakhs.

6. Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would first submit that the first accused is a registered partnership firm, that accused Nos. 2 to 5 were partners thereof and that the partners were made liable only by virtue of section 278B of the Act which was newly added and which came into force on October 1, 1975, and only from that date, can the partners of a firm be made liable for the offences, provided the other requirements of section 278B are shown to exist. He would add that, regarding the offences alleged, there must be specific allegation in the complaint itself the partners, that there are no allegations in the complaint as against accused Nos. 3 to 5 and a mechanical reproduction of the words in section 278B that the partner were in charge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the firm during the relevant time is not sufficient to make out the offences as against them. Regarding this first contention, Mr. K. Ramaswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the offences complained of in these had arisen subsequent to October 1, 1975, inasmuch as the assessment years were 1976-77 to 1979-80, the relevant accounting years being the years ending on March 31, 1976, to March 31, 1979. He would further submit that specific allegations are made in the complaint all the partners with regard to the offences alleged.