2018 (9) TMI 1986 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Madras High Court upholds dismissal of discharge petitions, emphasizes prima facie case for trial

Boopathy Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Karaikal

The Madras High Court dismissed criminal revisions filed by the accused against the dismissal of discharge petitions under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The ... Discharge from all charges - Section 245 of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that there are prima facie allegations made out against the petitioner/accused to proceed the cases further. At the time of deciding petition, seeking discharge, the Court has to see whether there is any prima facie allegations to proceed the case and the defence taken by the accused need not be looked into at the time of framing of charges. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the authority, who accorded sanction is incompetent, is not acceptable. Prosecution has to prove its case at the time of trial, whether the authority, who accorded sanction is competent or not and also it is a matter for trial and the issue raised by the petitioner/accused regarding competency, can be decided at the time of trial. Now, charges were framed and trial has been commenced in all the above cases, hence at this stage, these revisions against the orders of dismissal of discharge petitions, cannot be entertained. It is settled proposition of law that while considering petition for discharge of the accused, allegations and materials in the documents filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. must be considered and not the defence taken by the accused. Criminal revisions are dismissed. Issues:- Dismissal of discharge petitions filed under Section 245 of Cr.P.C.- Competency of the authority according sanction to prosecution- Prima facie allegations to proceed with the cases- Applicability of cited authority in the present caseAnalysis:The judgment by the Madras High Court pertains to criminal revisions filed by the accused against the dismissal of discharge petitions under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The accused had filed petitions seeking discharge from various cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal. The accused contended that the authority according sanction to the prosecution was incompetent and that the ingredients of breach of trust were not established. The defense relied on a previous decision by the court in a similar case.The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, argued that the matter had progressed with charges being framed and the trial commencing after the stay was vacated. The court, after hearing both parties and examining the records, found prima facie allegations against the accused in the complaints and final reports. It emphasized that at the stage of deciding discharge petitions, the focus should be on whether there are prima facie allegations to proceed with the case, rather than delving into the accused's defense. The court highlighted that the issue of the competency of the authority according sanction could be addressed during the trial, and the cited authority by the petitioner's counsel was deemed inapplicable to the present case.Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal revisions, stating that since charges were framed and trial had commenced in all the cases, the revisions against the dismissal of discharge petitions could not be entertained at that stage. The judgment underscored the principle that while considering discharge petitions, the focus should be on the allegations and materials in the documents filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., rather than the defense put forth by the accused. As a result, the revisions were dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.