O R D E R v. Having Heard Either Side, I Find That The Question As To Whether Theratio Of The Decision In The Above Reported Case Is Applicable To The Caseon Hand Is A Matte

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1503 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.241/2001 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.148/1990 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M/S.P.KUKNHAPPA NAIR AND CO., GREAT INDIAN TEXTILES, ALAVIL, KANNUR-5, REPRESENTED BY P.SUGUNAN, JOINT MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT SPECIAL RANGE, P.K. COMMERCIAL BILDGS. CHEROOTTY ROAD, CALICUT-31. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON 17/11/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1503 of 2002-A ------------------------------ Dated this the 17[th] day of November, 2009. O R D E R In a prosecution for offence under Section Section 277(ii) r/w.Section 278(B) of Income Tax Act, the revision petitioner pleaded guiltybefore the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam inC.C.No.148 of 1990. The learned Magistrate recorded the plea of guilty.The revision petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced to a fineof Rs.50,000/-. The revision petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.241 of 2001.When the criminal appeal came up before the V Additional SessionsJudge, Ernakulam, the revision petitioner argued that in the light of thedecision in Premdas V. Income Tax Officer (1999(5) SCC 241), the chargeshould not have been framed. After setting aside the conviction andsentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case to thetrial court for fresh disposal. Assailing the legality, correctness andpropriety of the above order of remand in appeal, this revision petitionwas filed. Having heard either side, I find that the question as to whether theratio of the decision in the above reported case is applicable to the caseon hand is a matter that can be examined by the trial court. The Crl.R.P.No. 1503 of 2002-A appellate court had not at all any why erred in remanding the matter tothe trial court. There is no illegality or impropriety also. I find no merit inthe revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/-P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab