Against the said order the appellant filed a revision petition.
Besides this, the first and the second accused were charged with other offences also.
The return so submitted was verified and signed by the first accused the appellant herein.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.2.1977 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Misc.
6 lakhs and the expenditure show in the statements had been obviously inflated by at least Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 4th February, 1977 and arise in the following circumstances.
However, for the purpose of the present appeals we are number companycerned with the rest of the charges made in the companyplaint.
2,69,765.
The appellant herein filed a miscellaneous petition before the Magistrate as to the maintainability of the companyplaint against him in his capacity as the Managing Director.
The first accused, Sh.
21,36,785 for the accounting year ended 31st march, 1965.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
The appellant also field another petition being Crl.
M.R. Pratap, who was the Managing Director of the Company Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., is the appellant in the present appeals.
The Magistrate dismissed the miscellaneous petition by order dated 28th November, 1973.
4813/76 and Criminal Revision Case No.
Petition No.
The respondent companyplainant is the Income tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras.
A companyplaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under Sections 277 and 273 of the Income tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act and Sections 120 B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to an offence said to have been companymitted during the assessment year 1965 66.
383 384 of 1979.
The accompanying statements were signed by the second accused.
Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, S. Rajappa for Ms. A. Subhashni and Raju Rama Chandran for the Respondent.
Petition No.
The appellant is the first accused along with the second accused.
T.M. Sampath for the Appellant.
The companyplaint charged the appellant for making willfully and knowingly false verification of the companypanys return of income and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 277 of the Act.
44 of 1974.
According to the companyplaint, as a result of a search at the premises of the companypany and the residence of both the accused and others, made under Section 132 of the Act, it was discovered that the return of income and the statements accompanying the said return were deliberately false, being less than the true income by more than Rs.
