HEMA MOHNOT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order of dismissal of the discharge petition, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai, in M.P. No. 1914 of 2007 in E.O.C.C. No. 179 of 1985 dated August 7, 2007. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been falsely and unnecessarily implicated in the case and that she has no nexus, but, for the fact that she is the wife of the first accused. He would further contend that in this case, even according to the complaint itself barring one allegation of encashment of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 3,690 from a fictitious person, there is no other allegation as against the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would further contend that, earlier the petitioner filed a petition to discharge, but it was dismissed and against that, a revision was preferred before this court and that was also dismissed, but, subsequently, the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that there is an assessment order pertaining to the year 1984-85 which is the relevant year for the complaint made by the income-tax authority and because of the subsequent development, a second application for discharge was filed. But even that was dismissed at a threshold without giving any opinion on the order, namely, the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the lower court has committed grave error in coming to the conclusion without looking into the order and no finding is given but dismissed the discharge petition only on the ground that the earlier application for discharge was dismissed and it was upheld by this court. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), brought to the notice of this court that it is a classic example of a case being dragged on for years together. In this connection, he also referred to the revision filed by the very same parties, which has been dismissed by this court and which is Hema Mohnot v. State by Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration), 2006 285 ITR 402, in which also this court has held that this is a classic example as to how the criminal case could be protracted for several decades. In spite of such an finding given by this court, even, as early as in the year 2006, the petitioner had the audacity to file yet another discharge petition citing the very same reasons and only adding that the assessment order for the year 1984-85 is filed which is nothing but to drag on the matter.