Income Tax Officer vs Balaji Chit Funds and Others

Maheswaran, J.—In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name

of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds.

The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections

120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income Tax Act. The summons was received by the

second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second

accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the

proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the

arguments on those petitions, a question arose whether the first accused is properly represented. The petitioner has filed petitions to amend the

complaints. But, they were dismissed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The Magistrate held that when the case is pending,

amendment of the complaint cannot be made. On that view, he dismissed the petitions. The petitioner has filed the above petitions invoking the

powers of this court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to permit the petitioner to amend the complaint.

The short case of the petitioner is that the first accused, namely, the firm of Balaji Chit Funds, has not been properly described as being

represented by Jayaraman, the second accused, who is the managing partner of the firm, the first accused. In other words, according to the

petitioner, there is an omission to say that the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds, is represented by the managing partner, Jayaraman. He now prays

that he may be permitted to amend the complaint describing the first respondent as ""Balaji Chit Funds represented by the second accused,

managing partner"". Such an omission, according to the petitioner, was not intentional.

These petitions are opposed by the accused on the ground that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint

What has been overlooked in this case is that it is only in respect of matters covered by specific provisions of the Code that the inherent powers

of the High Court cannot be invoked. The power u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, could well be exercised when there is no provision in the

Code to meet a particular situation, as in this case. The firm which is an accused, has to be properly described as being represented by the

managing partner. After all, these amendments in respect of the description of the first accused cannot in any way affect the other accused who are

partners of the firm. On the contrary, the omission to so describe may affect the result of the original proceedings against the first accused. In fact,

it is the allegation of the petitioner that it is only during the arguments of the petitioner u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the criminal

proceedings that the petitioner came to understand that there is no valid representation before the court in respect of the first accused. As the case

of the first respondent itself is that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint, the court will undoubtedly have

power u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to effect the amendment. Obviously, these petitions, though it is not stated in the petitions, must have

been filed by way of abundant caution so that the charge against the first accused may not fail for failure to properly describe the first accused as

being represented by the second accused, the managing partner. In the circumstances, the petitions are allowed and the amendment sought for is

ordered.