They are assessees.JUDGMENT Pratap Singh, J.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.The allegations in it are briefly as follows :The complainant is a public servant and he is authorised to file the complaint.It is also filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, within the meaning of section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (which I shall hereafter refer to as "the Act").The first accused is a partnership firm carrying on business in surgical goods.Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of the first accused firm who were in charge of, and were responsible to, the first accused firm for the conduct of the business of the first accused during the relevant time.Along with the return, the connected statements were also delivered.Search were conducted at the premises of the first accused firm and its allied firms and the residences of the partners and connected places in June, 1980, under the provisions of section 132 of the Act. During the course of the search, a large number of accounts books and documents were seized and they were examined and detailed investigation was made which disclosed large scale suppression of income by deliberate inflation of purchases and falsification of accounts by introduction of fictitious credits.During the course of assessment proceedings subsequent to the search, unable to explain the deliberate inflation of purchases, etc., the accused came forward with a proposal for settlement.They agreed to the suppression of the income of the first accused firm and allied firms being considered in the hands of the first accused firm and the concealed income for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 being fixed at about Rs. 41 lakhs.The first accused filed a return of income in response to a notice issued under section 148, dated October 16, 1980, and the income-tax return for the assessment year 1976-77 on February 6, 1982, admitting an income of Rs. 12,13,640 as against an income of Rs. 1,02,470 admitted in the original return.The petition of the accused for waiver under section 273A was rejected.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.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.Then again it is alleged that, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and for the aforesaid purpose and in the course of the same transactions, all the accused have done the acts which constitute the various offences.I have referred to them in the summarisation of the complaint in E.O.C.C. No. 659 of 1988 supra.Original returns for 1976-77 to 1979-80 were filed on August 4, 1976, August 5, 1977, August 28, 1978 and August 9, 1979, respectively.Assessments in respect of those original returns were completed on November 18, 1976, September 26, 1977, October 19, 1978 and September 12, 1979, respectively.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code