All the four petitions were dismissed by the High Court by four separate orders dated June 19, 1984.
There were several other wrong statements in the accounts.
On the basis of the allegation that the petitioner had deliberately filed a false return and had kept false accounts with the intention of using them as genuine evidence in the assessment proceedings, a companyplaint was filed against him in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences , Madurai for taking action against him for offence punishable under section 276C and section 277 of the Act and under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner has filed this petition before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal against the above said four orders of the High Court.
The trading and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1977 78 filed alongwith the return showed that he had purchased chicory seeds of the value of Rs.
On August 20 and 21, 1981, a search was companyducted at the residence of the petitioner under section 132 of the Act which resulted in the seizure of several documents and account books which revealed the suppression of purchase of chicory seeds, the existence of several bank accounts, fixed deposits, investments in the names of his wife and daughters and several bank accounts number disclose in the statements filed alongwith the return.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 19th June, 1984 of the Madras High Court in Crl.
He is an assessee under the Income tax Act, 1961 hereinafter called the Act .
The return was accepted.
1923 of 1984.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Criminal No.
65,797/ as against Rs.
8164/83, 8168, 8166 8170/83.
Petition No.
Similarly three other companyplaints were filed against the petitioner for the same offences said to have been companymitted by him in respect of three succeeding assessment years 1978 79, 1979 80 and 1980 81 before the same Magistrate.
The petitioner thereupon filed four petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Madras requesting it to quash the said proceedings companytending that the launching of the prosecution in each of the four cases was a premature one on the ground that the reassessment proceedings started against him under the Act had number been companypleted.
The Order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioner is the proprietor of M s. Ratnam Food Stuff Co., Tuticorin.
S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner.
13,380/ alongwith the profit and loss account, trial balance, income tax adjustment statement and a companyy of the capital account.
For the assessment year 1977 78, he filed his return under the Act on January 20, 1978 disclosing an income of Rs.
