TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revision petition challenges discharge petition dismissal under CrPC Section 245. Court emphasizes pre-charge evidence.</h1> <h3>BABU C. GEORGE S/O. PG. GEORGE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,</h3> BABU C. GEORGE S/O. PG. GEORGE Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, - TMI Issues:Petitioner seeking discharge under Section 245 of Code of Criminal Procedure based on a complaint alleging offenses under Section 277 of Income Tax Act and Section 181 of Indian Penal Code. Dismissal of the discharge petition by the court below challenged in revision petition.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition for quashing the proceedings, which was disposed of by the court, leaving the right to apply for discharge. The petitioner then filed a discharge petition under Section 245 of CrPC, which was dismissed by the court below. The petitioner argued that the order passed was not legal and the offenses were not attracted based on the documents produced. The respondent's counsel contended that there was no illegality, and the petitioner's right to argue for discharge after pre-charge evidence was not precluded by the order.It was noted that no pre-charge evidence had been taken in the case. The court highlighted that evidence under Section 244 of CrPC needed to be considered before deciding on framing charges or discharging the accused under Section 245. The court below was directed to expedite the inquiry, take pre-charge evidence, and then consider the discharge plea without being influenced by previous observations. The lower court was instructed to complete the inquiry and decide on discharge or framing charges within three months.Additionally, the petitioner had filed for personal exemption under Section 205 of CrPC, but no orders were passed as the accused had not appeared or taken bail. The court directed the petitioner to appear, take bail, and then have the personal exemption application disposed of by the magistrate on the bail-granting date. The petition was disposed of with these directions, and the parties were asked to appear before the lower court on a specified date.The order was to be communicated promptly to the court below for necessary action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
