The main legal point established is that for a prima facie case to be made out, the evidence must not be unworthy of credit or patently absurd, and the court must consider the truth and veracity of the evidence before framing charges.

K.C.Gupta, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been directed by the Income-tax Officer, Survey Circle, Rohtak, against the order dated October 26, 1990, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the criminal revision filed against the order dated March 13, 1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak, vide which the respondents were summoned under Section 276C/277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Section 465/467/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code, was accepted and the impugned order was set aside and further the respondents were discharged.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on March 30, 1983, the Income-tax Officer, Rohtak, filed a complaint under Section 276C/277 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 465/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code, against Janta Trading Company and Vinod Kumar Jain and others on the allegations that Janta Trading Co., was a partnership firm while the other three accused, namely, Vinod Kumar Jain, Kala Wati Jain and Ravi Kanta Jain, were its partners and they were carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cement. It was further alleged that on December 14, 1982, a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the respondents. It was found that the respondents had maintained two godowns and had further maintained the stock register, cash book and ledger, etc. According to the stock register, the opening balance as on December 13, 1982, was shown to be 899 bags of cement but on physical verification, it was found short by 561 bags of cement which shows that those bags had been sold and had not been accounted for in the books of account and entries were not made with respect to the sale of 561 bags of cement in the cash book.

3. It was further alleged that Vinod Kumar Jain, the respondent, was asked to explain the shortage of 561 bags of cement and he made statement on December 14, 1982, that those bags were sold to one Lala Hukum Chand Jain, the trustee of Gaushala, G. T. Road, Panipat, but the cash memos had not been issued as the sale was made on credit. It was further alleged that when confronted with the position that cash book had been written only up to December 10, 1982, Vinod Kumar Jain, the respondent, stated that since there was no transaction, he had not made any entry. However, on enquiry made from Panipat, it was revealed that Lala Hukum Chand Jain had not purchased 561 bags of cement in his individual capacity or as a trustee of the aforesaid Gaushala.

4. It was next alleged that the statement of Rattan Kumar, accounts clerk of the Gaushala, was recorded wherein he has stated that the said Gaushala had purchased 200 bags of cement on December 4, 1982, from Janta Trading Co., Rohtak, while Rs. 10,000 were paid on December 10, 1982, and Rs. 3,596 were paid to Nem Chand of Panipat through whom cement was purchased and no cement was purchased from Janta Trading Co. or Joti Parshad on December 14, 1982. It was also alleged that after collecting the said information Vinod Kumar Jain was confronted with it and he stated that he had made the statement since his father had told him this on telephone and the telephone talk could not be completed as it had gone out of order and in fact 561 bags of cement were sold by his father to Lala Hukum Chand Jain, Gopi Ram and Ram Sarup and further that 281 bags of cement were sold to Ram Sarup, 140 bags to Lala Hukum Chand Jain and 140 bags to Gopi Ram vide bills Nos. 808, 809 and 811 and the said sales had taken place through Lala Hukum Chand Jain and the cement was despatched through three goods receipts bearing Nos. 260, 261 and 262 to the aforesaid persons through truck No. RSB 4480.

5. It was further revealed that the said truck did not pass through Gohana Octroi post. Again, the statement of Lala Hukum Chand Jain was recorded on February 9, 1983, wherein he stated that he had not purchased any cement from Joti Parshad or from Janta Trading Co. on December 14