The criminal court must independently establish all elements of the offence, regardless of the result of any proceeding under the Income Tax Act.

1. Six accused were sent up for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for the offences punishable under S.193 read with S.109 I.P.C., S.471 read with S.465 I.P.C. and S.277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. All these accused were found guilty of haying committed various offences and the first accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offences under S.193 and 471 read with S.465 I.P.C. The 2nd accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under S.193 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under S.471 read with S.465 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each for the sentences awarded under S.193 and 471 read with S.465 I.P.C. Accused Nos. 3 to 6 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offences under S.193 read with S.109 I. P. C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each for the offence under S.471 read with S.465 and 109 I.P.C. with the usual default sentence of two months' imprisonment. Criminal R.P. No. 193 of 1984 has been filed by the first accused which is a private limited company and Crl. R. P. No. 6 of 1984 has been filed by accused Nos. 2 to 6. They are members of the Board of Directors and the Secretary. Both these criminal revision petitions were jointly heard and the matter is being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The first accused Company has its registered office at Bombay with branch factory at Thripunithura. On 30-12-1967 the Company filed Income Tax returns before the Income Tax Officer, Bombay for the assessment year 1967-68. Subsequently these assessment proceedings were transferred to the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Company Circle, Ernakulam. In these proceedings the first accused produced cash book and ledger for the year ending 31-3-1967 and in the accounts produced by the first accused for the assessment year 1967-68 there was an entry relating to the receipt of Rs. 30,000/- from M/s. K.R.P. Chettiyar and Sons, Trichinapoly. The entry was dated 24-3-1967. The prosecution case is that this is a false entry and there was not even a concern in the name and style M/s. K.R P. Chettiyar, Trichinapoly and therefore the accused intentionally fabricated the cash bock and ledger. The accused bad also produced some more documents before the Income Tax Officer to make it appear that they bed in fact received Rs. 30,000/- from K.R.P. Chettiyar and Sons.

3. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 12 were examined and several documents were marked and the trial court accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused as aforesaid and the conviction and sentence have been upheld by the lower appellate court.

4. The revision petitioners challenge the conviction and sentence on several grounds. It has been contended that the Income Tax proceedings were pending before the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Company Circle, Ernakulam and Ext. P 65 assessment order was also passed on 22-3-1972 and thereafter the entire proceedings were transferred to the office of the I.T.O., Special, Circle, Ernakulam as per Ext. P1 order dated 18-7-1982 and the prosecution has been launched against the accused by the Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, who bad no authority to file such a complaint, as the offence, if any, was committed before the I.T.O, B Ward, Company Circle, Ernakulam. Another contention urged by the revision petitioners is that the entire prosecution was on the basis of Ext. P65 order dated 22-3-1972 and this assessment order was subsequently set aside by the appellate court and therefore the prosecution has no more independent existence since the whole matter has been reversed by the appellate court. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the offence as the prosecuting agency has not fully comp