A. Packiaraj, J.
1. Since the issue involved in the two revisions are one and the same, I deem it fit to pass a common order.
2. The petitioner has been convicted for offence Under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default to undergo 45 days rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in C. C. Nos. 17 and 18 of the 1992 against which appeals were filed in C. A. Nos. 14 and 15 of 2001 before the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Madurai, who confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. In as much as two courts have already gone into the facts and given concurrent findings holding the accused guilty, it may not be necessary for me to go into the facts and circumstances of the case again. Moreover, this court sitting in revision is called upon to satisfy itself with the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed by the courts below, and not to reappraise the evidence. Suffice it for the purpose of disposing of the revision to state the prosecution case in brief as follows :
'(a) The petitioner is a medical practitioner. It is alleged that he had not submitted the income-tax returns for the years 1983 to 1988. Six cases were instituted, each case for a year. Of the six cases, three cases were tried before the trial court and the remaining cases were stayed by this court in quash petitions, since a plea had been taken by the petitioner that an appeal against the adjudication order passed by the income-tax authorities had been allowed by the appellate authority.
(b) Meantime, the cases proceeded before the trial court ended in acquittal. In the quash petitions, the High Court did not accept the contention raised by the petitioner in view of the fact that the appeal was allowed by the income-tax authorities and the quash petitions were dismissed. However, before the orders of this court dismissing the quash petitions could reach the trial court, the Presiding Officer, namely, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was transferred and the new incumbent, on receipt of the orders of the High Court convicted the accused for offence Under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act. However, it has to be noted that the facts are identical in nature in relation to C. C. Nos. 13 to 15 of 1992 and C. C. Nos. 17 and 18 of 1992.
(c) The accused filed a petition for extension of time, prior to the amendment to submit his returns and the same was allowed by the Department. It may not be necessary to go into the other details of the case since the court accepted the said plea and acquitted the accused. The same principle applies to these cases also.'
4. That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the conviction is not proper, especially when the income-tax authorities have granted time for extension and the petitioner, has also submitted his income-tax returns.
5. On going through the records and the order, I find they are identical in nature and in view of the fact that time had been given by the Department for c submitting the returns and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his returns, no offence is made out. Hence, these revisions have to be allowed and the conviction be set aside.
6. In the result, the revisions are allowed. Fine amount is paid, shall be returned to the petitioner