Bona fide mistake in return and stale criminal complaints justified discharge where guilty intent was not established.

A wrong statement in the return concerning the date of cessation of business was treated as a bona fide mistake, and the absence of material showing the requisite guilty intent justified discharge. The Court found no gross error in the Magistrate's appreciation of the complaint and supporting documents. It also noted that the criminal proceedings had remained pending for more than a decade and had become stale, so further trial would serve no purpose. The discharge was therefore upheld and the complaints were not allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were rightly discharged on the ground that the incorrect date of cessation of business in the return was a bona fide mistake and, in the circumstances, continuation of the criminal complaints was unwarranted.

Analysis: The complaint arose from a wrong statement regarding the date of cessation of business in the returns. The Magistrate, on a scrutiny of the complaint and supporting documents, treated the error as a bona fide mistake and found no basis to infer the requisite guilty intent. The Court found no gross error in that appreciation. It also noted that the proceedings had remained pending for more than a decade and had become stale, making further trial purposeless.

Conclusion: The discharge was upheld in substance and the complaints were not permitted to continue.

---