2013 (10) TMI 1082 - HC - Income Tax

Refund certificate of the income-tax under fictitious name obtained Charge to be framed against the wife of the main accused namely A1 Held that - There is a strong circumstance to presume that a prima facie case exists against the petitioner (i) as she is the wife of A1 ; (ii)several documents were seized from the residential house occupied by her along with her husband ; (iii) a cheque for Rs. 3,690 issued in the name of her company has been encashed by her, the said cheque was issued by a fictitious person ; (iv) the allegation is that she conspired along with her husband and other accused, of which some of them are employees of the Race Club to dupe the Income-tax Department for the purpose of making unlawful gain by producing bogus tax deducted at source certificates or original tax deducted at source certificates in the name of fictitious persons by opening bank accounts in the name of fictitious persons in different banks and, therefore, it can be easily held that there is prima facie case as against the petitioner at this stage. Reliance has been placed on the Apex court judgment in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja 1979 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT - Relying upon the above decision of Apex court it has been 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. In exercise of its jurisdiction under section 228 and/or under section 482, the court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.

Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful implication of the petitioner.
2. Prima facie evidence and framing of charges.
3. Repeated filing of discharge petitions.
4. Consideration of external documents in discharge petitions.
5. Delay in proceedings and abuse of process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrongful Implication of the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated in the case solely due to her being the wife of the first accused. The primary allegation against her was the encashment of a cheque for Rs. 3,690 from a fictitious person. The petitioner argued that there were no other allegations against her, and the previous dismissal of her discharge petition did not take into account a subsequent assessment order for the year 1984-85.

2. Prima Facie Evidence and Framing of Charges:
The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, it is sufficient to establish a prima facie case based on the materials presented by the prosecution. The court need not delve into the detailed examination of the evidence. The court cited previous judgments, including Hema Mohnot v. State by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) [2006] 285 ITR 402 (Mad) and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [2012] 9 SCC 460, which laid down guidelines for considering discharge petitions and establishing prima facie evidence.

3. Repeated Filing of Discharge Petitions:
The petitioner had previously filed a discharge petition, which was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court. Despite this, the petitioner filed another discharge petition citing the same reasons, which was viewed as an attempt to protract the proceedings. The court noted that such repetitive filings were an abuse of the judicial process, aimed at delaying the trial.

4. Consideration of External Documents in Discharge Petitions:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [2004] AIR 2004 SCW 6813, which stated that external documents submitted by the accused should not be considered for discharge petitions. The court reiterated that only the materials presented by the prosecution should be considered when determining whether to frame charges.

5. Delay in Proceedings and Abuse of Process:
The court highlighted the inordinate delay in the proceedings, noting that the case had been pending since 1985. The court criticized the petitioner and other accused for filing multiple petitions to delay the trial. The court directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as soon as possible.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, confirming the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which dismissed the discharge petition. The court reiterated that there was sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner and emphasized the need to prevent further delays in the trial process. The court directed the lower court to expedite the trial and ensure a swift resolution of the case.

← Previous Next →