RENGASAMY J.

This petition is filed under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 128 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. I.), Egmore, Madras. The petitioners are the accused in the above case for the offence under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). The first petitioner is the company, the third petitioner is the managing director and the second petitioner is the director of the first petitioner-company. The first petitioner carries on the business of the manufacture and sale of suitcases, handbags, purses and other miscellaneous plastic goods. It has branches and sales depots outside the Madras city. For the year ended on March 31, 1981, the first petitioner submitted the return of income declaring the net income of Rs. 1, 45, 386. The assessment also was completed on the total income of Rs. 1, 56, 580. In the statement of account, the first accused had declared a closing stock of Rs. 19, 55, 984. On February 18, 1982, there was a search in the premises of the first petitioner and the records were seized. According to the respondent-Income-tax Officer, it was found out from the records that the return filed by the first petitioner did not contain the full income as stocks to the value of about Rs. 5 lakhs had been suppressed, in the original return. Therefore, notice was issued to the petitioners under section 148 of the Act on July 19, 1983, and the first petitioner once again filed the return on December 6, 1983, declaring the net saving income as found in the original return. As the closing stock of the first petitioner was not correctly shown in the return and there was omission of the stocks to the aggregate value of Rs. 5 lakhs in the return, a complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, against the petitioners under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Act The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the proceedings before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate contending that there is no basis for the allegation that stocks to the value of about Rs. 5 lakhs were suppressed in the stock book and as it was not possible to maintain a day-to-day stock account, a rough account was prepared on an estimated basis as the same was required for banking purposes as the company was availing of loan facilities from the bank and, therefore, from the rough account, the actual stock in hand could not be ascertained. It is further stated by them that as the bank calls for particulars of stocks periodically, such a rough stock statement was prepared and furnished whenever required by the bank and such a stock account will not show the accurate physical stock which would be ascertained only by physical verification and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer is not correct in relying upon the rough stock account to justify his assessment that there was short statement of closing stock to the extent of about Rs. 5 lakhs. It is further stated that even before the Income-tax Officer had passed the order of assessment on the basis of the stock account book, which he seized, the Commissioner of Income-tax had ordered for the prosecution and, therefore, the prosecution is illegal. It is also contended that the Income-tax Officer had passed order levying a penalty and on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Income-tax Appeals Nos. 2239 and 2240/(MDS) of 1985, the Tribunal had allowed the appeals setting aside the order of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to proceed with the enquiry in C. C. No. 128 of 1985 and the same is liable to be quashedIt is not in dispute that on February 18, 1982, search was made in the prem