- (1.)THIS revision petition has been preferred against the judgment in C. A. No. 182 of 1997 on the file of the Principle Sessions Judge, chennai, which had arisen out of the judgment rendered by the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in E. O. C. C. No. 207 of 1986.
(2.)THE short facts of the complaint is that the revision petitioner/accused, a cinema actress, had obtained a loan of Rs. 4,65,000/- from the All India Anna D. M. K party, Chennai, as per the entry made in the above said party's ledger folio on 17. 4. 1986. THE accused had admitted in her sworn statement given before the Assistant Director of inspection (investigation) on 23. 4. 1986 about the above said borrowal of Rs. 4,65,000/- from the above said political party. According to the prosecution as per section 269ss of Income tax Act 1961, a person can obtain any loan or deposit only through an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft if the amount of loan exceeds rs. 10,000/ -. Since the loan obtained by the accused which is above Rs. 10,000/-was not by way of account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, according to the prosecution, there is a violation of Section 269ss of the Income Tax act, 1961, by the accused which is liable to be punished under Section 276dd r/w 269ss of the Income Tax Act.
The case was taken on file by the learned Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate EO-II, Egmore, as E. O. C. C. No. 207 of 1986 and on appearance of the accused on summons copies under Section 207 Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused and when charges were explained to her, she pleaded not guilty.

Before the Trial Court P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 27 were marked. On the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 when the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused had denied her complicity with the crime. The accused has examined herself as D. W. 1 and ex. D. 1 to Ex. D. 3 were marked on her side.

(3.)WHEN the proceedings were pending, the accused approached the Honourable Apex Court of India in Crl. A. 601/1992 against the order passed by this Court in Crl. M. P. 2854/1988 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 269ss, 276dd & 271d of the Income Tax Act. The honourable Apex Court in Crl. A. No. 601/1992 (alongwith Crl. A. 4478/2000) has held that Section 269ss, 271d, 276dd are constitutional. Crl. A. No. 601/1992 was filed by the Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation) of the Income Tax department and the respondent therein is the present accused kumari. A. B. Shanthi. WHEN the above said Crl. A. No. 601/1992 was pending before the Honourable Apex Court, a direction was given by the Honourable Apex Court in Crl. M. P. 5557/1992 in Crl. A. No. 601/1992, dated 26. 7. 1993, to the effect that the substantive sentence in E. O. C. C. No. 207 of 1986 shall not be given effect to until further orders from the Honourble Apex Court.
The learned Trial Judge after due consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary placed before him has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused under Section 276dd r/w 269ss of income Tax Act has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo 2 years RI and a fine of rs. 4,65,000/- with default sentence. The learned trial judge has suspended the sentence of imprisonment alone as per the directions of the Honourable Apex court in Crl. M. P. 5557 of 1992 in Crl. A. No. 601 of 1992 dated 26. 7. 1993. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Judge, the accused had preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C. A. 182/87. The learned Sessions Judge, after giving due deliberations to the arguments adduced on both sides, has confirmed the orders of the learned trial judge in e. O. C. C. No. 207 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate EO-II, Egmore at Chennai, thereby dismissing the appeal. The learned sessions Judge has also suspended the sentence of imprisonment and fine as per the directions of the Honourable Apex Court in Crl. M. No. 5557 of 1992 in crl. A. No. 601 of 1992 dated 26. 7. 1993, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.