In support of the said charges, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 4, and marked exhibits P-1 to P-58, and, on behalf of the defence, one Gurusami, Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras-6, was examined as D.W. - 1 and exhibits D-1 to D-6 were marked.The case of the complainant, the appellant herein, is that the respondent herein/accused is doing business in the name and style of Messrs. Rajasekaran and Co., and he is an income-tax assessee.The balance-sheet and profit and loss account were also filed along with the return.In the balance-sheet, he has shown a sum of Rs. 2,53,498.92 as due to sundry creditors on the liabilities side.In the schedule to the balance-sheet for the sundry creditors, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 was shown as due to Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., while actually it was an amount received as commission in June, 1975, and it was not an advance or loan.In an enquiry by the Department with Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., it was revealed that Messrs. Rajasekaran and Company was actually paid a commission of Rs. 1,05,000 in June, 1975, itself by cheque for the services rendered by them.Thus, it is clear that the accused, with a view to avoid payment of lawful dues to the Government, intentionally fabricated his account books relating to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79 by deliberately suppressing the commission receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., for the assessment year 1976-77, and falsely showing it as if it was income for the assessment year 1978-79 with the intention to use them as genuine evidence in the course of the income-tax assessment proceedings.In addition, he has wilfully made false verification in the returns of income for those years.JUDGMENT K.M. Natarajan, J.These two appeals are directed by the offences under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, and for nor awarding the minimum sentence as per law for the offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in E.O.C.C. No. 2222 of 1982 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras.The respondent in both the appeals, who is the accused in the case, was prosecuted by the Income-tax Department under six charges - the first charge is under section 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code; the second charge is under section 193, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the third charge is under section 196, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fourth charge is under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fifth charge is under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sixth charge is also under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, on the allegations that the accused has intentionally fabricated his account books relating to the income-tax assessment years 1976-77 and 1978-79 by deliberately suppressing the commission receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. for the assessment year 1976-77 and falsely showing the same as income for the assessment year 1978-79 with a view to defraud the exchequer of its legitimate revenue, and deliberately delivered false returns of income and statements of accounts based on the abovesaid fabricated account books and thereby attempting to mislead the Income-tax officer and dishonestly inducing him to deliver the assessment orders relating to the above assessment years, computing the total income at a considerably lower figure than that to which he is properly assessable, and acting and relying on the aforesaid fabricated account books and false returns of income and statements for the aforesaid income-tax assessment years.Hence the complaint.Four witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant.P.W. - 1 is the Income-tax Officer.He has deposed in support of the allegations stated in the complaint.Through him, the income-tax return, exhibit P-1, received from the accused for the assessment year 1976-77, exhibit P-3, the statement of accounts signed by Thiru G. Venkatesan, chartered accountant of Messrs. Venkatesh and Co., exhibit P-2, the trading and profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1976, exhibit P-4, schedule to balance-sheet as on March 31, 1976, about sundry creditors and sundry debts, exhibit P-5, statement of total income for the year ending March 31, 1976, and exhibit P-6, power of attorney in favour of Messrs. Venkatesh and Co., were marked.He then issued exhibit P-7 letter to Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. inquiring whether they have deposited the said amount with the accused-company on June 27, 1975, and to furnish details of commission payments made by them.The debit note dated June 26, 1975, exhibit P-18, sent by Thiru T.K. Vaidyanathan, Regional Accountant of Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., showed that the accused was paid a commission of Rs. 1,05,000 as final settlement for the services rendered by the accused concern in canvassing for the sale of 50 marine engines to Kerala Fisheries Department and the said amount was paid by way of cheque.According to him, at page 127 of exhibit P-31, ledger containing an account for Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., there was an entry for a receipt of Rs. 1,05,000 on June 27, 1975, by cheque No. 086581 on Grindlays bank without any narration to the effect that the same was account.But there is no account for commission receipt.The correspondence between the accused-company and Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. were also filed.A sworn statement, exhibit P-45, was recorded from the accused on February 21, 1979, in which the accused has clarified that he had no other business with Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. excepting the commission of Rs. 1,05,000 and that the receipt of the amount was shown as deposit and it was a mistake.P.W. - 2, S.K. Kandasami, Income-tax Officer, deposed that he recorded sworn statements, exhibits P-50 and P-55, from P. W. 3, T. K. Vaidyanathan, Regional Accountant of Messrs. Greaves cotton and Co. Ltd. P.W. - 3 deposed about his giving statements to P.W. - 2 and production of documents.The accused was examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.He would further state that the returns were prepared by the auditor and he merely signed in a routine way.Thereupon, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.One witness was examined on the side of the accused.D.W. - 1, S. Gurusami, is the Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle III, Madras, and it is his evidence that, in the original assessment order for the year 1978-79, which was marked as exhibit D-4, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 received by way of commission from Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. has been fully assessed to income Messrs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. has been fully assessed to income-tax.Because the accused disclosed this amount as income for the year 1978-79, it was assessed for that year.The trial judge framed three points for consideration, namely :-As regards the first point, the trial judge held that the Income-tax Officer is not a court within the meaning of section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, and, consequently held that the complaint under sections 193 to 196 of the Indian Penal Code has to fail.As regards points Nos. 2 and 3, the trial judge held that the charges under section 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act have been proved.Applying the ratio in the above-quoted decisions to the facts of this case, it is seen that the offence is said to have been committed in the year 1976-77 and the order of acquittal was passed in 1984, and no useful purpose would be served by ordered re-trial at this length of time especially when the respondent has already undergone imprisonment till the rising of the court and paid the fine in respect of the offences committed in connection with the same transaction.

Cited provisions: Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code