The interpretation of the expression 'no case against the accused has been made out' and the meaning of a 'prima facie case' as per Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

1. As the facts of Criminal Revisions Nos. 166 and 167 of 1990 are the same, they are disposed of by this order.

2. The brief facts are that the firm, M/s. Sat Pal Tarsem Lal, Desi Wine Contractors, Bhawanigarh, in the financial year 1975-76 had shown a bogus credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Ram Nath. In order to prove the genuineness of this credit, the firm filed an affidavit dated April 14, 1977, purported to have been signed by Ram Nath before the Income-tax Officer and produced a person purported to be Ram Nath before him. The Income tax Officer cross-examined Ram Nath and he was cross-examined by counsel for the firm. Ram Nath signed his statement. The said firm also filed an affidavit purported to have been signed by Ram Nath before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala.

3. The signatures on both the affidavits and the statement dated August 5, 1977, are the signatures of Kesho Ram. Kesho Ram impersonated as Ram Nath. The Income-tax Commissioner authorised Shri J.B.S. Gill, Income-tax Officer, Patiala, to file the complaint against Kesho Ram accused.

4. The learned Magistrate accepted the prima facie evidence led by the prosecution and started trial after framing the charge against the accused. The accused filed revision petitions against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, dated September 13, 1988, which were accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated October 12, 1989. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

5. The complainant, in support of its case, examined the following persons :

P.W.-1, Y.K. Ghaiha, proved the authorisation exhibit P-4 for launching the present complaint. He proved a specimen writing of Kesho Ram, exhibit P-1. He also stated that a specimen writing of Kesho Ram was given by him as Ram Nath and the original is signed by him and the photostat copy of the same is exhibit P-G.

P.W.-2, Ajit Singh Chhabra, Income-tax Officer, stated that proceedings of assessment of the accused-firm for the assessment year 1976-77 were pending before him as he was posted as Income-tax Officer in those days at Patiala. The return was duly signed and verified by Tarsem Lal, partner of that firm. The said firm had introduced a cash credit of Rs. 10,000 in the name of Ram Nath who filed an affidavit dated April 14, 1977, photostat copy of which is exhibit P-5. He also recorded the statement of Kesho Ram who was posing as Ram Nath. Kesho Ram had impersonated himself as Ram Nath while filing the affidavit and giving the statement.

P.W.-3, Dharam Pal Sharma, Inspector, stated that he recorded the statements of Ram Nath, son of Baru Ram, and the copy of which is exhibit P-7. P.W.-4, Shri J.B.S. Gill, proved exhibit P-4, the authorisation given by Shri S.C. Prashar, Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala, vide which he was authorised to file the present complaint. He also proved the specimen signatures of Ram Nath. He further proved the statement of Ram Nath, exhibit P-9, recorded by him.

P.W.-5, Dewan K.S. Puri, document expert compared the signatures of Ram Nath.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their help.

7. Mr. A.K. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to an unreported judgment of this court in ITO v. Emerson Paul Plastic Co. (since reported in [1991] 191 ITR 560) (Criminal Misc. Nos. 2467-M and 2648-M of 1987) decided by A.P. Chowdhri J., on February 25, 1991, and submits that the facts of this judgment squarely apply to the facts of these cases. The relevant portion of ITO v. Emerson Paul Plastic Co. [1991] 191 ITR 560, is as under (at page 563):

"Regarding the merits of the petitions, two points arise for consideration. One is--what is the precise connotation of the expression no case against the accused has been made out which, if wnrebutted, would warrant his c