2006 (6) TMI 79 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses criminal revision, upholds framing charges, criticizes delaying tactics.

The court dismissed the criminal revision case, upholding the trial court's decision to reject the discharge petition. It found a prima facie case for ... Petitioner has filed the petition under section 245 Cr. P.C. to discharge her from the case – Income-tax Department would contend that all the contentions now raised had already been raised before this court and after rejecting the said contentions, this court only directed all the accused to appear before the trial court for questioning under section 313 Cr. P.C, and this revision petition is not maintainable and the same is filed only to protract the proceedings – held that petitioner's earlier petition was dismissed by this court and this court has become functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. – revisions of this nature are filed only to protract the proceedings - I do not find any merit in this revision and it deserves to be dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Dismissal of discharge petition under Section 245 Cr. P.C.2. Prima facie case for framing charges.3. Protraction of proceedings by the accused.4. Previous petitions and High Court directions.5. Legal standards for framing charges.Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Discharge Petition under Section 245 Cr. P.C.:The petitioner, accused No. 12, filed a discharge petition under Section 245 Cr. P.C., arguing that the evidence presented by P.Ws. 1 to 69 and the documents marked as exhibits P1 to P26 had no material to connect her with the alleged offences. She contended that there was no specific case against her for creating fictitious persons or documents, and the only overt act attributed to her was the mechanical receipt of a cheque for Rs. 3,690 issued to Hindustan Electronics, her proprietary concern. The Special Public Prosecutor objected, noting that the points raised had already been considered and rejected by the High Court in a previous quash petition, directing all accused to be present for questioning under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The trial court dismissed the discharge petition, citing that the same grounds were previously rejected by the High Court and that the case against the accused could be proved after cross-examination of witnesses.2. Prima Facie Case for Framing Charges:The trial court concluded that there was a prima facie case for framing charges against the petitioner and other accused. The court relied on various pieces of evidence, including the seizure of records from Hindustan Electronics and other documents, statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, and the encashment of a cheque for Rs. 3,690 by the petitioner. The court noted that the materials on record suggested a probable consequence of the commission of the offence, justifying the framing of charges. Legal precedents, such as State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa and Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, were cited to support the principle that a prima facie case exists if there is ground for presuming that the accused committed the offence.3. Protraction of Proceedings by the Accused:The prosecution argued that the case had been protracted for nearly two decades due to the wilful absence or absconding of the accused and the filing of various petitions to quash or discharge the case. The docket orders of the trial court revealed multiple instances of adjournments and non-bailable warrants issued against absconding accused, leading to delays in framing charges. The court observed that the repeated filing of petitions by the accused was a tactic to protract the proceedings, as highlighted in the judgment of Om Wati v. State.4. Previous Petitions and High Court Directions:The court noted that similar petitions filed by the petitioner and other accused had been dismissed by the High Court in various criminal miscellaneous petitions and original petitions. The High Court had directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously, but the proceedings continued to be stalled by the accused's actions. The court emphasized that it had become functus officio, meaning it could not entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order was set aside by a competent court.5. Legal Standards for Framing Charges:The court reiterated the legal standards for framing charges, citing judgments from the Supreme Court. It emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must consider whether any case has been made out against the accused that, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. The court must consider the materials on record and form a presumptive opinion about the existence of factual ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court concluded that there was a strong suspicion and sufficient material to justify the framing of charges against the petitioner.Conclusion:The criminal revision case was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the petition. The court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the discharge petition and emphasized the need to prevent the protraction of proceedings by the accused through repeated petitions. The court's decision was based on a thorough consideration of the legal standards for framing charges and the evidence presented in the case.