9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are necessary for the disposal of the above criminal original petition are set out below. (i) The respondent herein preferred a complaint against the petitioner under section 35B of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The said complaint has been taken on the file as E.O.CC. No. 263 of 2007 and the same is pending for trial on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. The petitioner filed a discharge application in Crl. M. P. No. 3457 of 2001 under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent has also filed its counter- statement and the petitioner herein has also filed a reply statement. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed additional grounds in Crl. M. P. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that when the petitioner insisted for the disposal of the discharge petition and prayed for the postponement of the examination of the witnesses after the disposal of the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has erroneously dismissed Crl. M. P. No. 3099 of 2007 filed under section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code by observing as follows: "Taking up the discharge petition prior to the commencement of trial under section 245(2), Cr. P. C., is only an exception. The general rule is examination of witnesses under section 245(1), Cr. P. C. Here also the defence counsel has not produced any documents that in this case also discharge petition may be taken up on priority, stating that charges are groundless. Hence, this discharge p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure Code came to be filed as early as on October 7, 2000, but yet the same is kept pending for the past seven years. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petition is maintainable under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereas, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the petition is not maintainable under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not understandable as to why the said petition filed under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code as early as on October 7, 2000, is kept pending for the past seven years. As seen from the memo filed in Crl. M. P. No. 3099 of 2007 arguments on the discharge petition seem to have been advanced for about one-and- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
