J JAYALALITHA Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners' applications for discharge filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dismissed. They have filed these revisions.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as follows: the petitioner in Crl. R. C. Nos. 781, 783 and 785 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first petitioner') was required to file return of income for the Assessment Year 1993-94 under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by 31st August, 1993. The first petitioner failed to furnish the return of income. A notice was sent to the first petitioner under Section 142 (1) on 18. 1. 1994, calling upon her to file the return of income within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. This notice was served on the first petitioner on 19. 1. 1994. The period of 30 days expired, but no return was filed in compliance to the notice. Reminders were sent on 22. 8. 1994, 10. 2. 1995 and 23. 8. 1995, yet the return was not filed. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142 (1) (ii) of the Act was issued on 31. 7. 1995, calling upon the first petitioner to produce the accounts since as per the Act, assessments need to be completed by March 31, 1996. The first petitioner failed to furnish the return of income and also failed to comply with the statutory notice. A best judgment assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act on 9. 2. 1996 and penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were also initiated for non-compliance of the notice under Section 271 (1) (b) of the Act. A demand inclusive of interest was made. The first petitioner challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ). This appeal was partly allowed by order dated 28. 2. 1997. The department has challenged that order in Appeal No. 1239 of 1997. The first petitioner has also challenged that order. Both the Appeals are pending. On 14. 10. 1996, complaints were filed against the first petitioner and the other petitioners for the offence under Section 276cc of the Act. Thereafter, there have been several proceedings initiated at the instance of the first petitioner before the Magistrate's Court and also before the High Court. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding these revisions to refer to all of them in detail or to refer to the facts in each case, since they are more or less similar.

(3.) ON 12. 5. 2004, an application under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondents for examining the first petitioner. On the same day, the first petitioner filed an application under Section 245 of the Code for discharging her from the prosecution proceedings. Other petitions were also filed. The respondents filed petitions before this Court for a direction to the trial court to frame charges against the petitioners. The petitioners filed application under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. The petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed by this Court. Against this, the department filed Special Leave Petitions, which were disposed of by the Supreme Court, directing the trial court to consider the matter regarding framing of charge, after hearing the parties on the petition for discharge, within a period of two months. Thereafter, the trial Magistrate dismissed the discharge petitions and fixed the date for commencement of hearing as per the directions of the Supreme Court. The learned Magistrate directed the accused to be present in Court on 25. 8. 2006. The first petitioner has filed the revision against the dismissal of the discharge petition. She has also filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 278e of the Act.