9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the order discharging the accused under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Consideration of remitting the cases back to the trial court for retrial. 3. Impact of settlement proceedings on withdrawal of prosecution cases. 4. Effect of delay on the decision to remit the cases for retrial. 5. Prejudice to the accused due to retrial. 6. Legal requirement for evidence before discharging accused under section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. The High Court of Madras addressed the validity of the order discharging the accused under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Income-tax Department challenged the discharge orders in two revision cases. The court emphasized that the power to discharge under section 245 can only be exercised when some evidence has been presented by the complainant. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, the court found that no evidence had been presented in these cases, rendering the trial court's orders illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the discharge orders. 2. The court considered the possibility of remitting the cases back to the trial court for retrial. The Income-tax Department opposed this, expressing concerns about setting a precedent leading to the termination of similar cases due to delays. After careful consideration, the court decided not to remit the cases for retrial to prevent prejudice to the accused and avoid potential complications arising from the passage of time since the initiation of the cases. 3. The impact of settlement proceedings on the withdrawal of prosecution cases was crucial in the judgment. The settlement between the accused and the Department included provisions for considering the withdrawal of prosecution cases at a later stage. The court noted that the accused had paid the assessed amount as per the settlement, and the terms included clauses related to withdrawal of prosecution cases, which the trial judge appropriately considered in passing the order. 4. The court deliberated on the effect of delay on the decision to remit the cases for retrial. Considering the prolonged duration since the assessment year and the settlement, the court concluded that ordering a retrial after such a significant lapse of time would cause considerable prejudice to the accused. The judgment highlighted the irreparable harm and serious prejudice that a retrial could impose on the accused, leading to the decision not to send the cases back for retrial. 5. The judgment emphasized the prejudice the accused would face if retrial were ordered, especially due to the unavailability of key individuals and the reliance on seized documents. The court highlighted the potential difficulties and unfairness the accused would encounter if the cases were retried after such a substantial delay, ultimately leading to the decision against remitting the cases for retrial. 6. Lastly, the court reiterated the legal requirement for evidence before discharging accused under section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It directed lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's guidance that the power of discharge under section 245 should only be exercised after evidence has been presented under section 244. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to this legal requirement to prevent premature discharges without proper evidentiary basis.
|
