The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of provisions related to prosecution under the Income Tax Act and the Indian Penal Code, as well as the applicability of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. This petition raises questions of law, which at the first flush appear to be tenable, but which on closer scrutiny fail as being devoid of merits. This petition is at the instance of the accused, seven in number, in C. C. No. 439 of 1974 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur. A complaint was filed by the Income Tax Officer, F-Ward, Trichur, before the said court under S.277 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 and S.193 & 196 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused is a firm and accused Nos. 2 to 7 are its partners. In Para.2 of the complaint it is stated as follows:

"The complaint is filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala II, Ernakulam, and a copy of the authorisation under S.279 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is herewith filed."

2. The petitioners filed an application before the Court below under S.245 (2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), for short the Code, for their discharge, on the ground that the cognisance of offence under S.193 and 196 of the Penal Code is barred under S.468 (2) (c) of the Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 711975 overruling the objections raised by the petitioners. It is this order that is virtually in challenge in the present petition. The petition is filed under S.397 and 401 of the Code, which are the relevant sections for filing a revision. Perhaps to meet an argument a inset the maintainability of the revision, based on S.397 (2) of the Code an attempt is made to masquerade the petition as one under S.482 the Code also.

3. The preliminary objection raised by a learned counsel for the Revenue is that this revision is not maintainablesnce this, in effect is a revision petition against an order passed by the Court below at an interlocutory stage. I think this objection has to be upheld. However, I do not think it proper to dismiss this Crl. M. P. on that ground alone. Various questions of law are raised regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint and the absence of jurisdiction in the Court in taking cognizance of the offence against the accused. These objections if sustainable, might attract the jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code.

4. The facts of the case, relevant for our purpose, are as follows: The 2nd accused acting for the firm M/s. Friends Union Oil Mills, Cherp, Trichur District filed a return before the Income Tax Officer, E-Ward, Trichur. It was discovered that there was concealment of income to the tune of more than Rs. 20,000/ . Penalty proceedings were therefore initiated, on being satisfied that the petitioners had concealed particulars of their income as contemplated under S.271 (1) (c) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, for short the Act. Notices were issued to the petitioners directing them to pay penalty as provided for under S.271 (1) (iii) of the Act, Thereafter, this prosecution was, launched under S.277 of the Act. The original authority for imposition of penalty under the Act is the Income Tax Officer. Sometimes the Income Tax Officer refers the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of imposition of penalty. This is provided for in S.274 (2) of the Act. This is when concealment exceeds a sum of Rs. 25,000/ . In this case, the concerned Income Tax Officer referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.274 (2) of the Act. Originally, penalty was fixed at Rs. 2,0,000/. In, appeal to the Tribunal, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/ by the Tribunal.

5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the prosecution under S.277 is barred, since it is hit by S.279 (1A) of the Act, which reads as follows:

" (1A) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under S.277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposable upon him under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of S.271 has been reduced or waived by an order under sub-section (4A) of that

sect