SURESH CHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prosecution launched by the second respondent in 1993 alleging offences punishable under Sections 276 C (1) and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961 continues to hang fire on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) till date, the petitions at hand, besides others, also being the cause for delay. Three persons were shown in the array in the criminal complaint case wherein allegations were made of willful attempt to evade tax Section 276 C (1) and false statement in verification having been made in the returns and false statement of accounts delivered Section 277 in relation to assessment year 1989-1990, the said accused including M/s. Goyal Gases P. Ltd. (petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3016/2015) and its managing director, Suresh Chand Goyal (petitioner in Crl. M.C. 3002/2015) besides Smt. Sudha Jain, described as director in the aforementioned company, she statedly having since passed away. The ACMM considered the criminal complaint and the material filed therewith by the public servant and issued process by his order dated 27.04.1993. It may be mentioned here that the summoning order and some of the proceedings recorded in its wake were challenged by another criminal revision petition (Crl.MC1686/2009) which remained pending till date, the petitioners not having prosecuted it diligently, it having been withdrawn and dismissed accordingly, by a separate order of even date.

(2.) The case before the ACMM is being tried as a warrant trial case based on a complaint and thus the trial court called upon the complainant to lead pre-charge evidence. The pre-charge evidence having been led, he proceeded to consider the question as to whether charge is made out or not. By order dated 23.01.2015, the trial court has found a case made out for putting the petitioners on trial on the charge for the aforementioned offences. Formal charge was framed on 23.01.2015 itself and the pleas of the petitioners were recorded.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners and the third accused Sudha Jain, since deceased, approached the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing petitions (CR nos.01-03/2015). The revisoinal court, by a very detailed order, passed on 15.07.2015 found no merit in the contentions raised and thus dismissed the challenge to the order framing charge.