2004 (9) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Trial Court Discretion in Criminal Proceedings, Rejects Petitions Seeking Section 313(a) Direction

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Ms. J. Jayalalitha And Others.

The High Court dismissed the petitions seeking direction for questioning the respondents under section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court ... Questioning under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Petitions under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the prosecution are pending before the trial court - These petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, , against the respondents for a direction to the Trial Court, to fix a date for questioning the respondents/accused under section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and framing charges against the respondents. - Petitions under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the prosecution are pending before the trial court and the trial court is well seized of the matter and it is for the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. - Hence no reasonable or valid grounds are made out to admit these petitions for issuance of a direction to the trial court to fix a date for questioning and frame charges against the respondents. Issues:1. Delay in questioning the respondents under section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Allegation of non-filing of income tax return against the respondents.3. Invocation of inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. Comparison with a Supreme Court decision regarding personal appearance for questioning under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Analysis:1. The petitions were filed to direct the trial court to fix a date for questioning the respondents under section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Income-tax Department expressed concern over the trial court's delay in following the proper procedure. The prosecution had completed chief-examination of witnesses, but the trial court had adjourned the case without proceeding with questioning the respondents.2. The Income-tax Department alleged that the respondents repeatedly took adjournments, and the trial court did not adhere to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was argued that due to the non-filing of income tax returns, the trial court should question the respondents under section 313(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. The High Court considered the invocation of inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was emphasized that such powers should be sparingly exercised to prevent abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. In this case, since the matter was pending before the trial court, there was no justification for the High Court to intervene and direct the trial court to fix a date for questioning the respondents.4. The comparison with a Supreme Court decision highlighted that in a similar case, the Supreme Court directed a respondent to personally appear for questioning under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, in the present case, the trial court had not dispensed with the procedure, and the petitions filed by the prosecution were already pending before the trial court. Therefore, there was no valid reason to issue a direction to the trial court for questioning the respondents.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable, emphasizing that there were no reasonable grounds to interfere with the trial court proceedings. The judgment underscored the importance of allowing the trial court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law without external interference.