High Court Of Madras
N. Mani vs. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Administration) & Anr.
Section Cr.PC 482
Pratap Singh, J.
Criminal O.P. No. 9363 of 1989
12th January, 1994
Counsel Appeared
M. Ravindran, T.C. Suresh & T.K. Sampath, for the Petitioners : K. Ramasamy, for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
Pratap Singh, J. :
Accused Nos. 6 and 13 in CC No. 179 of 1985 and A-2 in CC No. 304/1988 (A-19 in CC No. 179 of 1985), on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EOI), Egmore, Madras have filed these petitions under s. 482 of the Cr.PC praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the proceedings as against them.
The short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 20, out of whom the petitioners are accused Nos. 6, 13 and 19, respectively for offences under ss. 120B, 420, 467, 471, 197, 182, 181, 177, 193, 468, 196, 199, 200, 201, 380, 379, 417, 420 r/w ss. 511 and 109 of the IPC and s. 277 of the IT Act, 1961 r/w ss. 120B and 109 of the IPC and s. 419 r/w s. 511, IPC. To quash the same as against them, A-6, A-13 and A-19 have filed these petitions and I shall refer to the relevant allegations as against them at the appropriate places.
Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 9363 of 1989 would submit that (1) in Crl. MP No. 3409 of 1985 and connected cases Kumudini Subhan vs. Chief CIT (Admn.) (1992) 198 ITR 390 (Mad), certain parts in the complaint were quashed and certain offences are quashed, that yet the complaint was not withdrawn and new complaint filed after deleting the portions which are struck off, and that evidence has been let in on the basis of the very same complaint and that had caused prejudice to the petitioner. He would further submit that after the portions of the complaint were struck off, and after certain offences were quashed, witnesses were examined and the evidence let in through the witnesses does not disclose any offence as against accused No. 6 and so, all further proceedings as against him shall be quashed. Mr. T.C. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for A-13 would submit that there was a delay in the progress of trial, that allegations against A- 13 are vague and do not give rise to any offence and hence the proceedings as against him are liable to be quashed. He would adopt the other submissions made by Mr. M. Ravindran.
Learned counsel appearing for A-19 would submit that the allegations against A-19 are also vague and do not call for any further proceedings as against him. Per contra, Mr. Ramasamy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the IT Department would submit that while in Kumudini Subhan vs. Chief CIT (Admn.) (supra) there is no direction that this complaint should be withdrawn and a fresh complaint should be filed after deleting the portions which were struck off and hence, the submission that this complaint ought to have been withdrawn and fresh complaint should have been filed is without any force. He would further submit that the evidence has been let in with regard to the offences which survive after the quashing of certain offences, and there cannot be any prejudice against the petitioners. He would further submit that already 69 witnesses have been examined and 250 documents were exhibited and now the case is at a stage when the Court below has to frame charges on the materials available before it and while so, there is no necessity for this Court to intervene. He would further submit that in the petitions filed by some of the accused, this Court had pointed out that at such a stage it is only for the Court below to frame
charges on the materials available against the particular accused and in view of these observations, they need not be canvassed at this stage and in fact there are materials against them.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsel. I shall first consider submission No. 1 made by Mr. M. Ravindran, viz., that this complaint ought to have been withdrawn and a fresh complaint ought to have been filed after deleting the portions which were struck off in the earlier petition by this Court and I would consider along with it the submission that evidence was let in regarding all offences and hence the accused are prejudiced. To consider this submission, the penultimate para in Kumudini Subhan vs. Chief CIT (Admn.) (supra) needs to be extracted. It reads as follows: “In view of my findings in para No. 26, the complaint with reference to the proceedings concerning the main offences mentioned in paras 8, 10(3), 11(1) to (3) and 12(2) of the complaint which are alleged to have taken place at Trivandrum and Bombay is quashed. To make the point clear, even though the prosecution cannot prove the main offences that were alleged to have taken place at Trivandrum and Bombay, it is open to the prosecution to lead evidence with reference to any conspiracy that might have taken place to commit such offences. Likewise, in view of my findings in para No. 27, I quash the proceedings concerning the offences mentioned in the complaint falling under s. 195(1)(b), Cr.PC.
In the result, the petitions are allowed in part as stated above.” The above makes it clear that it is not the direction of this Court that this complaint should be withdrawn and a fresh complaint should be filed after deleting the portions which are quashed. That being the case, the submission that this complaint ought to have been withdrawn and a fresh complaint should be filed after deleting the portions, has got no force whatever.
In view of the quashing of proceedings concerning the offences mentioned in the complaint filed under s. 195(1)(b) of the Cr.PC, Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel, would submit that the offences which would fall within s. 195(1)(b) of the Cr.PC and which are quashed are ss. 193, 196, 199, 200, 467, 471 and s. 120B of the IPC. Regarding the submissions that evidence was let in even with regard to these offences and hence prejudice is caused, I am unable to accept the submission because the evidence let in will have to be cogent and it cannot be truncated and disjoined (sic– disjunctive). The Court below is bound by the decision of this Court and definitely only with regard to those offences which survive, the Court below will have to consider the relevant evidence in that regard. I find no force for any fear that any prejudice will be caused to any of the accused. Hence, neither can these submissions be sustained. Regarding A-6, Mr. Ravindran would submit that the relevant allegations against him are made in paras 2(9), 7, 10(4), 13(2), 14(1), and 15(3) and 19. The relevant allegations in these paras alleged that A-6 is employed in Mohnot & Co. and that A-1, on obtaining the duplicate or the original TDS as the case may be, would cause false and forged records be made by A-6 and A-7 and other accused, that investigation revealed that there was no partnership as stated in the returns and that the signatures and records relating to the said firm were forged and that the returns and statements were filed by accused No. 1 through his clerk A-6 before the ITO at Vilupuram and that the return was filed by A-6 and that another cheque purported to have been issued by S. Srinivasan for Rs. 2,200 was encashed on 24th Aug., 1981, by accused No. 6, and that the first accused in pursuance of the conspiracy with the aid of A-6 and A-7 created false records for accounts and prepared a false return of M/s Hassan & Co., for the asst. yr. 1980. Mr. Ravindran would further submit that the evidence incriminating A-6 was spoken to only by PW 1 and that would not make out any offence as against him.
Mr. T.C. Suresh, learned counsel submits that regarding A-13, the relevant allegations are in paras 7, 8, 15(1) and 15(3) of the complaint and these allegations are vague and do not make out the offence. Learned counsel appearing for A-19 would also make a similar submission. Regarding A-6, A-13 and A-19, the general allegations are made in paras 3 and 4 of the complaint. In para 4 of the complaint, it is stated that the first accused along with the other accused entered into a conspiracy between January, 1979, and June, 1984, to obtain duplicate certificates of TDS on false pretence and also obtained some original certificates from the race club through and with the aid of accused Nos. 14, 15 and 17 and forged the signatures of the original winners and made false documents with the aid of the other accused and filed their returns containing false declarations and created such circumstances to exist and filed documents containing false statements before the IT authorities. It is further alleged that the accused also conspired to create false documents having reason to believe that they are false and knowing that the statements are not correct and true to the best of their knowledge and belief and filed the same before the ITOs and induced them to act on such false, forged and untrue documents and also on the accompanying false statements and declarations and to act on the said circumstances and issue refund orders on the basis of the false, forged and untrue documents and statements and thereby created and attempted to cheat the Government and the IT authorities. These allegations relate to all the accused. While so, in the context of these allegations, I am clear that it is sufficient to make out the available offences in the complaint. Now, already evidence was recorded, oral and documentary and the stage is set for framing of charges.
In Hema Mohnot vs. State by Chief CIT (Admn.) (1992) 198 ITR 410 (Mad) which relates to the 12th accused in this very same case, at p. 411, Padmini Jesudurai, J. had observed as follows : “As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the present petitioner and several other co-accused had earlier filed similar applications under s. 482, Cr.PC, to quash the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner had filed Crl. MP No. 3412 of 1985 and the same, along with connected applications, had been dismissed by this Court on 28th Jan., 1987. In those applications, the petitioner and the co-accused had raised as many as nine contentions and all the contentions had been answered in detail by this Court. Witnesses have, thereafter, been examined and the case stands posted for questioning the accused under s. 313(a), Cr.PC. It is only thereafter that the Court will decide whether the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution calls for either framing of charges or warrants a discharge of the accused. The proper course, therefore, is to put forward these contentions before the Trial Court. Sec. 482, Cr.PC, cannot be invoked when there are statutory remedies provided under the Cr.PC itself, particularly when the question of framing of charges has actually arisen. It is obvious that this second round of quash petition has been filed merely to protract the proceedings.”
The view expressed by Padmini Jesudurai, J. is that the proper course is to put forward these contentions before the Trial Court and s. 482 of the Cr.PC, cannot be invoked when there are statutory remedies provided under the Cr.PC itself, particularly when the question of framing of charges has actually arisen. These observations apply in all force to these cases. Since none of the submissions made by learned counsel finds acceptance with me and in view of what I have stated above, these petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the cases expeditiously.
[Citation : 285 ITR 413]
