The main legal point established is that the court before which the offence was committed should file the complaint as per S.195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and no superior court can confer jurisdiction on the transferee court to file a complaint.

1. These appeals, between the same parties relate to one and the same question of law. Therefore I consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common judgment.

2. Respondents were prosecuted by the Income Tax Officer for offence punishable under S.277 of the Income Tax Act and S.193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made against the respondents is that they filed false accounts before the Income Tax Officer to evade payment of tax. The assessment years in relation to which the proceedings were initiated are 66-67 and 69-70.

3. The complaints in all these cases were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alleppey on 6-10-72. They were entertained by that court as C.C. 277/72, C.C. 278/72 and C.C. 279/72. They were subsequently renumbered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalapuzha as C.C. 387/80, 388/80 and 389/80. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 1 and 3 under S.248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second accused passed away during trial; so the charge against him abated. Aggrieved by the said acquittals the complainant has preferred these appeals 378/82, 379/82 and 391/82 respectively.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents challenges the maintainability of the complaint before the trial court. According to the learned counsel the complaint was one not maintainable, that it ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the said defect cannot be cured and that the appeal must be dismissed without going into the merits of the case. The argument of the counsel is that the complaint regarding offence u/ss.193 and 196 I.P.C. should have been filed by the court in which the offence was alleged to have been committed or by some other court to which that court was subordinate. The court for the purpose of this proceeding is the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Alleppey. So, the Income Tax Officer, B Ward, Alleppey ought to have filed the complaint. The complaints in all the three cases were filed by Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam. The Income, Tax Officer, Special Circle. Ernakulam was not the court in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. Therefore it is argued that the complaints were filed by an incompetent person and so the same must be dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant meets the above argument by stating that the cases relating to the respondents were transferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax to the Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam in exercise of the powers u/s. 127 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that P.W.1, the Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, is the court in relation to the respondents' cases and so the complaints filed by P.W.1 are maintainable.

6. S.136 of the Income Tax Act provides that any proceeding before an Income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding for the purpose of S.196 of the Indian Penal Code and that every income-tax authority shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So an Income Tax Officer before whom a proceeding under the Income Tax Act is pending is deemed to be a Civil Court for purpose of S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.127 of the Income Tax Act authorises the Commissioner of Income tax to transfer any case from one Income Tax Officer to any other Income Tax Officer. The Explanation to the said Section reads as follows:

"In this section and in S.121,123,124 and 125, the word "case", in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year."

The explanation makes it clear that when a case is transferred from one