Judgment :- SWAMIDURAI J. Criminal Revision Case No. 485 of 1987 is filed against the judgment made in C.C. No. 110 of 1986 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and Criminal Revision Case No. 486 of 1987 is filed against the judgment made in C.C. No. 111 of 1986 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. In both the cases, respondents Nos. 1 to 8 who are the accused have been charged under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C(1) , 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Private complaints were filed separately by the Income-tax Officer, Madurai, against the accused. The short facts of the case in C.C. No. 110 of 1986 are as follows : The first accused is Messrs. Selvam Brothers, a partnership-firm, doing business in iron and other materials at Keezha Masi Street, Madurai. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the partners in the abovesaid first accused firm. The first accused used to purchase iron materials from Messrs. Iron and Steel Traders situated at No. 77, Sembudoss Street, Madras. Thayumanuswami, who was employed in the first accused firm, Madras, issued a demand draft No. 5200 on January 29, 1980, for a sum of Rs. 5, 800 to E. Muthu who is employed in the Iron and Steel Traders at Madras and that the. same was paid towards the balance of the price of steel materials purchased by the first accused firm from the Iron and Steel Traders and the first accused firm had not shown the said amount in its accounts. The fourth accused, Palanivelu, gave a statement on August 9, 1984, admitting that the payment of the abovesaid sum by demand draft was not shown in the accounts of the first accused. The first accused submitted the income-tax account for the year 1980-81 on June 2, 1981, and the taxable income was shown as Rs. 23, 000 and, accordingly, the said income was accepted by the Income-tax Department by its order dated June 29, 1982, under section 143(1) of the Act. Even in the ledger and other account books of the first accused, the demand draft was not shown. 23, 000 and, accordingly, the said income was accepted by the Income-tax Department by its order dated June 29, 1982, under section 143(1) of the Act. Even in the ledger and other account books of the first accused, the demand draft was not shown. It is the case of the complainant that all the accused had conspired together with a common intention to falsify the accounts and had submitted false accounts to the Income-tax Department and thereby got favourable orders for lesser tax and thereby avoided the proper income-tax payable to the Department. The complainant therefore filed a private complaint under the abovesaid sections of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax granted sanction for prosecution under section 279 of the Act.Five witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant as P.Ws. - 1 to 5 and exhibits P-1 to P-24 were marked. The accused have not examined any defence witness nor marked any document on their side. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty and acquitted them as according to the lower court, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. One other ground on which the lower court has acquitted the accused is that for the same allegations, the complainant has filed C.C. No. 48 of 1985 before the lower court and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on technical grounds and filed a fresh complaint against the accused again in C.C. No. 110 of 1986. The lower court found that the second complaint is barred under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and on that ground also, the lower court acquitted the accused under section 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The short facts leading to the filing of C.C. No. 111 of 1986 are as follows : The Income-tax Officer, Madurai, is the complainant and he filed a private complaint against the accused Nos. 1 to 8 who are the respondents herein for the same offences as in C.C. No. 110 of 1986. The first accused, Messrs. Selvam Brothers, which is a partnership firm at No. 320, Keezha Masi Street, Madurai, is doing business in iron materials. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the partners in the first accused firm. The first accused used to purchase iron materials from Messrs. Iron and Steel Traders having office at No. 77, Sembudoss Street, Madras. The first accused, Messrs. Selvam Brothers, which is a partnership firm at No. 320, Keezha Masi Street, Madurai, is doing business in iron materials. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are the partners in the first accused firm. The first accused used to purchase iron materials from Messrs. Iron and Steel Traders having office at No. 77, Sembudoss Street, Madras. Thayumanaswami is an employee of the first accused firm and he gave a demand draft No. 906872 on December 15, 1980, for a sum of Rs. 20, 000 to E. Muthu who is working in Iron and Steel Traders and another demand draft No. 6494 for Rs. 20, 000 dated January 12, 1981, for the balance amount towards the sale price of iron materials purchased by the first accused from Iron and Steel Traders at Madras. The case of the prosecution is that these amounts were not shown in the accounts of the first accused. It is admitted by the fourth accused in his statement on April 9, 1984, that the demand drafts were not shown in the accounts. The first accused submitted income-tax accounts on May 1, 1982, for the year 1981-82 showing that the taxable income was Rs. 21, 340 and accordingly paid the income-tax under section 143(1) of the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that these payments were not shown in the ledger and other accounts of the first accused-firm and, therefore, all the accused had conspired together with the common intention to defraud the Department by furnishing false accounts and maintaining false records. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint under these sections of the Act against all the accused. Sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 279 of the Act.The prosecution has examined P.Ws : 1 to 5 and marked exhibits P-1 to P-26 and the accused have not examined any defence witness nor marked any documents. In both the cases, the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and the trial court found that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so acquitted them. In both the cases, the accused have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and the trial court found that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so acquitted them. The lower court has also acquitted the accused on one other ground, namely, that a complaint was filed by the complainant on the same allegations previously and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on certain technical defects and a fresh complaint was filed against the accused now. The lower court has accepted the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the second complaint is barred under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and so acquitted the accused under section 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows : "300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. - (1) A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof."* The demand draft in C.C. No. 48 of 1985 is stated to have been given by the first accused on January 21, 1980, whereas in the present complaint in C.C. No. 110 of 1986, the demand draft is stated to have been given on January 29, 1980. According to the prosecution, the date January 29, 1980, is the correct date and in the previous complaint, the date of the demand draft was given as January 21, 1980, for a sum of Rs. 20, 000. The accused in the previous case in C.C. No. 48 of 1985 were discharged under section 321(a), Criminal Procedure Code, by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court would cover the provision under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court following the judgments reported in (1) In re Raja Goundan 1966 (2) MLJ 518; (2) Kalgoriram. The accused in the previous case in C.C. No. 48 of 1985 were discharged under section 321(a), Criminal Procedure Code, by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court would cover the provision under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court following the judgments reported in (1) In re Raja Goundan 1966 (2) MLJ 518; (2) Kalgoriram. v. Emperor, 1941 AIR(Patna) 442; (3) Emperor v. Pritam Singh, 1948 AIR(Cal) 128; and (4) Durairaj v. Sivalingam L. W. (Crl.) 166, held that the decision in the previous case would operate as res judicata under section 300(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Even on the appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court has not committed any irregularity and the lower court found that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any material irregularity in the judgments of the court below and the judgments of the lower court are confirmed and the criminal revision cases fail and they are accordingly dismissed.