Yogeshwar Dayal, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) The first accused, Sh. M. R. Pratap, who was the Managing Director of the Company Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., is the appellant in the present appeals. The respondent/ complainant is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras. The appellant is the first accused along with the second accused. A complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under Sections 277 and 278 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 committed during the assessment year 1965-66.
(3.) According to the complaint the first accused was the Managing Director of the Rayala Corporation Private Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') and the second accused was the Chief Accountant of the said Company. The Company was an assessee under the Act. The return of the income of the company for the assessment year 1965-66 dated 17th November. 976 was delivered to the respondent on 18th November, 1965 showing a total income of Rs. 21,36,785/-for the accounting year ended 31st March, 1965. The return so submitted was verified and signed by the first accused the appellant herein. The acco panying statements were signed by the second accused . According to the complaint, as a result a search at the premises of the company 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. 6 lakhs and the expenditure shown in the statements had been obviously inflated by at least Rs. 2,69,765/-. The complaint charged the appellant for making wilfully and knowingly false verification of the company's return of income and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 277 of the Act. Besides this, the first and the second accused were charged with other offences also. However, for the purpose of the present appeals we are not concerned with the rest of the charges made in the complaint.;