IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.
Chaparala Krishna Brahmam
Versus
Guduru Govardhanaiah
Criminal Revision Cases Nos.1274, 1275 and 1276 of 1953. (Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.1204, 1205 & 1206 of 1953).
Decided On : 03 February 1954
The petitioner is the 1st accused in P.R.C. Nos.1 and 2 of 1953 and C.C. No.8 of 1953 on the file of the Stipendiary I Class Magistrate, Guntur. The complainant in all these cases is one Guduru Govardhanaiah who was a partner of the accused in a firm called Chaparala Krishna Brahmam & Co., Guntur. The substance of the allegations made by the complainant in P.R.C. No.1 of 1953 is this. The partners in the firm fell out and there was litigation between them in the civil Courts in Guntur. With a view to cause loss to the complainant the accused prepared false accounts, He also filed before the Income-tax Officer a form bearing the date 4th February, 1952, for the renewal of the registration of the firm. That form is a forged one. In order to fasten responsibility for his false accounts and also liability to income-tax on P.W. i and the complainant, the accused probably ante-dated some renewal form, signatures on which of the complainant and P.W. i may have been obtained by the accused in 1949 or 1950 before the partners fell out: he wanted to cheat all concerned. The accused thus committed offences under sections 467, 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code.
In the complaint in P.R.C. No.2 of 1953 it was alleged inter alia:
“The accused wanted to alter the accounts so that certain amounts representing profits may appear as borrowings from the company, the alleged persons who advanced, being the kith and kin of the accused.”
Besides, taking advantage of the circumstance that the accused happened to be the president of the Marketing Society, he diverted the funds illegally and manipulated the accounts in order to make it appear that the amounts owing to the Marketing Society were due to his relations and others and got the manipulated accounts filed before the Income-tax Officer.
“Incidentally by making his relations appear as creditors, the accused could deprive the firm partners of their due share of profits and deceive the Income-tax department”.
Thus the accused forged and falsified accounts with a view to obtain reduction of the income-tax payable to government, to safeguard himself from prosecution by the co-operative department for advancing the moneys of the Marketing Society and, to make it appear that amounts which were really profits were debts owing by the firm. He thus committed offences under sections 467, 471, 477-A and 420,. Indian Penal Code.
The substance of the complaint in C.C. No.8 of 1953 is that in respect of three cheques which were received by the firm.
“Accused I represented that the amount would be credited to the firm account in the Indian. Bank and believing the same, complainant endorsed the cheques in blank as desired by accused I. Accused I subsequently in collusion with his clerk accused 2, got all the amounts credited to his personal account and not the firm account........................Thus the accused being merchants and agents of the firm and being entrusted with cheque-amounts to a tune of Rs.9,178-7-6 for the purpose of crediting the same to the firm account, committed criminal breach of trust by getting the same credited to Accused 1’s personal account..................In collusion with accused 2, accused I got certain alterations also made in two cheques”. The 1st accused also filed a suit O. S.198/51 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. Thus the accused are liable under sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code.
Before the Magistrate the accused took the preliminary objection that the complaints attracted the provisions of section 195(1)(b) or (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that in the absence of a complaint by the Income-tax Officer in P.R.C.No.1 of 1953, by the Income-tax Officer or the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in P.R.C. No.2 of 1953 and by the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in C.C. No.8 of 1953, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The learned Magistrate overruled the objections and the 1st accused now seeks to canvass the correctness of th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.