The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Delco Remy Electricals (India) Ltd

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-P.W.1 challenging the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada in C.C.No.453 of 1998 acquitting the respondent-accused for the charges under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent-accused is the managing partner of Sri Padmalaya Finance Corporation and he is looking after the affairs of the Corporation. He was entrusted with the dominion over the property, accounts, deposits and collection of installments belonging to Sri Padmalaya Finance Corporation. It is alleged that the respondent- accused shifted the Corporation to his own house and is operating the finance business from his house and he kept the account books in his house and he has not allowed other partners to see the accounts. As such, L.W.1-revision petitioner being one of the partners filed a Civil Case and got appointed an advocate-receiver to supervise the Corporation. On that, the respondent-accused filed revision before this Court. This Court passed an order directing the advocate-receiver to prepare a balance sheet of the Corporation first of all and directing the accused to conduct the business in his firm with the concurrence and supervision of the advocate-receiver until the suit is disposed of and further directing the accused to shift the business to any of the premises acceptable to the other partners of the Corporation. While so, the petitioner came to know that the accused had taken away the cash from the borrowers and hire purchase agreement holders of the Corporation without remitting the cash to the Bank account on 18.4.1998. He also addressed a letter to the advocate-receiver, for

During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

On appreciation of evidence on record, the trial Court found the respondent-accused not guilty for the charges leveled against him and hence, acquitted him. Challenging the same, P.W.1 filed the present revision.

Heard and perused the material available on record.

It is the case of the petitioner that the accused took away cash from the borrowers and hire purchase agreements to his house without remitting the same to the Bank on 18.4.1998. When the petitioner addressed a letter on 17.7.1998 to the advocate-receiver for information about the non-remittance of the amount into the Bank by the accused, the advocate-receiver gave a reply informing that the staff of the accused handed over cash of Rs.1,74,000/- to the accused at his

The evidence of P.W.2-advocate-receiver goes to show that the income tax people freezed the Bank account of the firm during the last week of February, 1998 and therefore, the accused instructed his staff to bring the amount to his house. From the material on record, it is evident that P.W.2 knew the reasons for non-remittance of the amount by the respondent-accused.

Further, it is not elicited from the witnesses as to the duties of the respondent-accused and the methods that can be operated as to the amounts relating to the Corporation. In the absence of such procedure and in view of the reasons stated by the advocate-receiver and in view of the observation of the trial Court that the partners are litigating over the affairs of the firm from a long time, it can be said that the act of the respondent-accused in depositing the amounts at a subsequent date, would not amount to offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and no loss would be caused to the Corporation.

In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.