2007 (11) TMI 229 - HC - Wealth-tax

Criminal proceedings for failure of filing return - When the petitioner seeks to get herself discharged contending that the charges levelled against the petitioner are groundless, it is incumbent on the part of the Trial court to have considered the same on the merits and disposed of the petition at the earliest - the reasons stated for dismissing the petition are not in consonance with law and the same are unsustainable &, therefore, the said order has to be set aside and accordingly set aside

Issues:
1. Dismissal of a petition under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Maintenance of a petition under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Delay in disposal of the petition and examination of witnesses.

Issue 1: Dismissal of a petition under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The petitioner filed a discharge application under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court dismissed a petition filed under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which sought to postpone the examination of witnesses until the disposal of the discharge application. The court's reasoning for dismissal was that the general rule is the examination of witnesses under section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner argued that the court's order was against the law as the discharge application should have been taken up and disposed of before examining witnesses. The court agreed that the dismissal was erroneous, emphasizing that the discharge application should have been considered promptly. The court set aside the order and directed the lower court to dispose of the discharge application within three weeks.

Issue 2: Maintenance of a petition under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the petition under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was not maintainable until after recording the evidence of witnesses as per section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court noted the significant delay in the case, with the complaint filed in 1997 and the discharge petition in 2000, yet both were pending for several years. The court found the delay unreasonable and emphasized that the discharge petition should have been addressed promptly. The court criticized the lower court for not deciding on the merits of the petition and instead proceeding with witness examination. It ruled that the petition under section 245(2) was maintainable, and the lower court should have disposed of it without delay.

Issue 3: Delay in disposal of the petition and examination of witnesses:
The court expressed concern over the extended delay in both the complaint and the discharge petition, spanning nearly ten years. It highlighted that the lower court's insistence on examining witnesses before addressing the discharge petition was against legal principles. The court emphasized that when a petitioner seeks discharge based on groundless charges, the court must promptly evaluate and decide on the petition. The court directed the lower court to prioritize the disposal of the discharge application within three weeks and instructed both parties to cooperate in the process. It clarified that its directions did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits, urging the lower court to independently assess the contentions presented by both sides.

This judgment addresses the dismissal of a petition under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the maintenance of a petition under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the significant delay in both the disposal of the petition and the examination of witnesses. The court criticized the lower court's actions, emphasizing the need for prompt consideration of the discharge application and highlighting the importance of adhering to legal procedures. The court's directions aimed to expedite the resolution of the pending matters while ensuring a fair and just process for both parties involved.

← Previous Next →