SUDESH SHARMA Vs. T D GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sudesh Sharma has filed this revision petition against T.D.Gandhi under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 17.10.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent by setting aside the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri discharging the petitioner in terms of Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C. by holding that there is no such evidence on file, which if goes rebutted would result into conviction of the accused(petitioner).

(2.) IT is mainly stated in the petition that in the year 1993, respondent filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner, who was practicing as an advocate in Income Tax in District Kurukshetra for filing false forged and fabricated Income Tax Return in the name of non existing assessee, claiming refund on the basis of forged TDS certificate. Without recording any preliminary evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 29.03.1993, summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC . The trial court recorded the pre -charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. applicable to the trial of the warrant cases and after recording of the evidence, trial court, on considering facts, as per Section 245(1) Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that there is no such evidence on file, which goes unrebutted would result into conviction of the petitioner, as such, the trial Court discharged the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent challenged the order by way of filing revision petition. The revisional Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2013 allowed the same in a mechanical manner by setting aside the well reasoned order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the trial Court by directing the trial Court to reconsider the pre -charge evidence adduced by the respondent. It is also stated in the petition that respondent had instituted large number of complaints due to personal animosity amongst colleagues of the department as father of the petitioner was also working as Income Tax Officer in the department, thus making the petitioner scapegoat. In all, 103 criminal complaints were filed against the petitioner pertaining to the assessment year 1987 -88, 1988 -89 and 1989 -90 on the similar allegations, out of which 28 complaints were filed at Yamunanagar (including present one), 30 complaints were filed at Kaithal and 45 complaints were filed at Kurukshetra. In the complaints at Kurukshetra, the petitioner was acquitted and in the complaints at Kaithal, the petitioner was discharged.

(3.) IT is also stated in the petition that learned Addl. Sessions Judge while allowing the revision filed by the petitioner has erred in holding that at the time of framing of charge, the trial court is only to evaluate the evidence only with a view to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused, in total disregard to the provisions/procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, laying down separate procedure to proceed in the cases instituted on police report and the cases instituted otherwise than on police report. Notice was issued to the respondent and learned counsel for the respondent appeared and contested this petition.