TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1082
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er would further contend that, earlier the petitioner filed a petition to discharge, but it was dismissed and against that, a revision was preferred before this court and that was also dismissed, but, subsequently, the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that there is an assessment order pertaining to the year 1984-85 which is the relevant year for the complaint made by the income tax authority and because of the subsequent development, a second application for discharge was filed. But even that was dismissed at a threshold without giving any opinion on the order, namely, the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the lower court has committed grave error in coming to the conclusion without looking into the order and no finding is given but dismissed the discharge petition only on the ground that the earlier application for discharge was dismissed and it was upheld by this court. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision is filed. 4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), brought to the notice of this court that it is a classic example of a case being dragged on for years together. In this connection, he also referred to the revision filed by the very sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), would further contend that, the petitioner has been dragging on the case and on earlier occasions, the other accused have dragged on. This petitioner lost her battle in the first time and has come with a second one. Above all, the petitioner is a fugitive and non-bailable warrant is pending at least for the past six months and the petitioner did not even appear for question under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In spite of all these things, a classic case of inordinate delay in defending the case has been made by the petitioner and, hence, it was rightly dismissed by the lower court and, hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision. 8. Heard both sides. By consent of both the parties, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 9. This is an unfortunate case which has been kept pending in this court for the past several years. In spite of the earlier stringent order of this court as reported in Hema Mohnot v. State by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) [2006] 285 ITR 402 (Mad), the petitioner had filed the application once again before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titious persons by opening bank accounts in the name of fictitious persons in different banks and, therefore, it cannot be easily held that there is no prima facie case as against the petitioner at this stage. As rightly held by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, revisions of this nature are filed only to protract the proceedings. Crl. M. P. Nos. 3409, 3412, 3679, 3695, 3711 and 3879 of 1985 filed by various accused persons have been dismissed by this court and the same is reported in Kumudini Subhan v. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) [1992] 198 ITR 390 (Mad). The revision petitioner herein also filed Crl. M. P. Nos. 4181 of 1988. Her mother-in-law, A-11 also filed Crl. M. P. No. 6457 of 1988. Both the Crl. M. P.s were also dismissed by this court, which is also reported in [1992] 198 ITR 410. Similarly, the petition filed by A-1 was also dismissed by this court, as reported in N. K. Mohnot v. Chief CIT (Admn.) [1992] 195 ITR 72 (Mad). The main criminal original petitions in Crl. O. P. Nos. 9363 of 1989, 7683 of 1991 and 8990 of 1993, filed by A-6, A-13 and A-19 respectively were also dismissed by this court with a direction to the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.3,690, no finding has been given by the court below. 12. An argument was raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), that in so far as the documents produced externally, there is no need to consider the same as per the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] AIR 2004 SCW 6813. 13. In this connection, this court would like to quote the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh v. S. B. Johari [2000] 2 SCC 57, wherein in paragraph 4, it was held as follows: "4 ..........The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. . . " 15. As per the decision cited supra, it is known that the three-judge Bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case has held that, even on the basis of a strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the court can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that event be justified in framing the charges against the accused in respect of the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed by them. 16. As per the latest decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [2012] 9 SCC 460, wherein, the hon'ble Supreme Court has culled out various principles, which is extracted hereunder: "27 ........... At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil wrong' with no 'element of criminality' and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction ; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount t....