DINKAR SHRIPAD HONAVAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on I. A. No. 1892 of 2001 an application for taking a fixed date.

(2.) AFTER a perusal of the file it is clear that in this case every time this court is giving fixed date. On August 3, 2000, learned senior counsel himself took the date August 16, 2000, thereafter on August 16, 2000, again Shri Abhyankar prayed for time and for a fixed date of September 8, 2000. On October 14, 2000, again adjournment was asked on the ground that learned senior counsel is busy before some other Bench and the case was adjourned and listed on November 7, 2000. On November 7, 2000, Shri Abhyankar again repeatedly prayed for an adjournment for January, 2001. On April 26, 2001, Shri Rahul Gupta took a fixed date of July 5, 2001, and again on July 5, 2001, Shri Abhyankar prayed for time. Today again he prayed for a fixed date. As clear from the record this criminal revision is pending since 1996 against the order passed by Additional C. J. M., Indore (Economic Offences Court), for quashing charge dated March 9, 1996. From the perusal of criminal complaint it is clear that the Union of India through the Income-tax Officer has filed this criminal complaint under section 276C, 276 read with Sections 278 and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending since March 29,1984. The petitioner has also earlier filed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing the complaint on similar grounds which was registered as M. Cr. C. No. 1470 of 1990 and was dismissed on January 13, 1993 (D. H. Secheron Electrodes P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 824 (MP)). Therefore, from the order of this court dated January 13, 1993, it is clear that this court has already examined the similar grounds in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the criminal proceedings are pending since 1984 and the petitioner has already attempted in 1993, this petition against framing of charge has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner cannot be permitted to keep such petition pending in the High Court for an endless period. The petitioner may cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant and can very well put their side of the case in cross-examination of the witnesses. The trial court has already framed the charge after appreciating the prima facie evidence against the petitioner accused person.