1994 (1) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Offences and Prosecution - Held that the proper course is to put forward the contentions before the trial court and section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked when there are statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself particularly when the question of framing of charges has actually arisen. - these petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the cases expeditiously.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings against accused.
2. Allegations of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Income-tax Act.
3. Submission regarding withdrawal of complaint and prejudice caused to accused.
4. Specific allegations against each accused and their defense.
5. Delay in trial progress and vagueness of allegations.
6. Evidence let in and framing of charges.
7. Invocation of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis:
The judgment by Justice Pratap Singh of the High Court of Madras pertains to petitions filed by accused numbers 6, 13, and 19 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash proceedings against them in two separate criminal cases. The complaints lodged by the respondent implicated a total of 20 accused individuals for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act. The accused parties challenged the continuation of the proceedings against them, citing issues such as the withdrawal of the complaint and alleged prejudice due to the evidence presented. The defense argued that certain allegations were vague and did not establish any offense, urging for the quashing of the proceedings. The prosecution contended that the evidence presented was relevant and that the court should proceed with framing charges based on the available materials.

The judgment addresses the submissions made by both the defense and the prosecution. It examines the legality of withdrawing the complaint and filing a fresh one, emphasizing that the court did not direct such action. The judgment also delves into the specific allegations against each accused individual, analyzing the evidence presented and the relevance of the charges. The defense counsel raised concerns about the delay in trial progress and the vagueness of the allegations against their clients. However, the court found the arguments unconvincing and emphasized the need to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Furthermore, the judgment references a previous case involving one of the accused parties, highlighting the court's stance on invoking section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the importance of following statutory remedies provided by the law. The judgment concludes by dismissing the petitions and directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings, indicating a clear directive to move forward with the case without further delay.