INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. VINO KUMAR DIDWANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Income -tax Department, which had filed a complaint against the respondent herein for offences under sections 193 and 419 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 277 of the Income -tax Act, 1961, and which had been taken on file by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences -I, Egmore, Madras, as C. C. No. 1286 of 1985, which complaint was finally dismissed by the above court under section 204(4), Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that batta expenses for issuance of process to the respondent had not been paid, challenges the correctness of the above order in the present revision Since the matter has been disposed of by the trial court even before the accused had appeared, notice is not given to the respondent. In view of the decision of this court in Thiyagarajan v. Ayyamperumal [1983] L. W. (Crl.) 212, wherein the learned judge held that, in a revision against dismissal under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, notice to the accused need not be sent and the accused need not be heard. What would apply to a dismissal under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, would also apply to a dismissal under section 204(4), Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) AS stated earlier, the complaint against the respondent was filed by the petitioner and the same had been taken on file and process was issued to the respondent. On April 15, 1986, the trial court, on being satisfied that the respondent was evading summons, ordered issue of non -bailable warrant to the respondent with a covering letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay. After several adjournments, during which period the non -bailable warrant remained unexecuted, again on June 28, 1986, a fresh non -bailable warrant was issued also with a covering letter to the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, with a direction to the petitioner to assist in the execution of the non -bailable warrant. The case was adjourned to July 30, 1986, and again to August 28, 1986, when the non -bailable warrant remained unexecuted. On September 29, 1986, the trial court, while the non -bailable warrant was still pending execution, ordered issuance of a fresh summons to the respondent and posted the case to October 29, 1986. On October 29, 1986, the trial court dismissed the case under section 204(4), Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that batta expenses has not been paid by the petitioner. Hence, the present revisionThiru Sam. V. Chelliah, learned counsel for the petitioner, made two submissions.