- (1.) (Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.27245 of 2007:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to call for the records pertaining to EOCC No.263 of 1997 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence ? I), Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008 so as to quash the same. Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.666 of 2008:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in M.P.No.3457 of 2001 in E.O.C.C.No.263 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.1), Egmore, Chennai, set-aside and revise the order dated 25.02.2008 made in M.P.No.3457 of 2001 in E.O.C.C.No.263 of 1997 so as to discharge the petitioner from the above case.) Common Order: Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Criminal Original Petition and in the above Criminal Revision Case both the cases are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above cases are set-out below:- (i) THE petitioner is the accused in E.O.C.C.No.263 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai ? 8. THE respondent filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 35 (B) of THE Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) in respect of non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return for the assessment year 1993-1994. THE gist of the allegations are as under:- (ii) THE petitioner is the General Secretary of the political party-All India Anna Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). Earlier she was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). She was also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 1991-1996. Prior to her entry into politics, she was a film artist. THE petitioner was assessed to wealth-tax since the assessment year 1966-1967 and as such she is aware of her duties and responsibilities under the Act. For the assessment year 1993-1994, relevant to the valuation date 31.03.1993, the petitioner was in possession and ownership of various assets set out in detail in the complaint. For the assessment year 1992-1993 she filed a return of wealth on 23.11.1992 on net wealth of Rs.5,81,94,800/- and her net wealth was assessed at Rs.6,53,98,100/-. THE wealth tax return of the petitioner for the wealth tax assessment year 1993-1994 was due to be filed on or before 31.08.1993 as required under Section 14 (1) of the Act. However the petitioner did not file her return of wealth within the due date prescribed by the Statute inspite of being aware of her statutory duty. Thus the petitioner has wilfully and deliberately contravened the provisions of section 14 (1) of the Act by not furnishing her return of wealth on or before the due date prescribed by the Statute i.e., 31.08.1993 without any valid reason and thereby committed an offence under Section 35 (B) of the Act. (iii) Since the petitioner did not file the return a notice under Section 16 (4) of the Act was issued on 18.01.1994 requiring the petitioner to file the return of wealth within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. THE said notice was served on the petitioner by RPAD on 19.01.1994. Inspite of that the petitioner neither sent a reply nor filed a return. A reminder letter dated 10.02.1995 was issued and the petitioner did not respond inspite of the Statutory Notice issued under Section 16 (4) of the Act. Since there was persistent failure in furnishing the return, in order to complete the assessment, a letter was issued on 31.07.1995 requiring the petitioner to furnish details of assets owned by her as on 31.03.1993 and also particulars of debts or liabilities as on that date. THE case was posted on 22.08.1995 for furnishing the aforesaid information and enquiry. Repeated adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner but the details sought for were not furnished. THErefore the assessment was completed under Section 16 (5) of the Act on 15.02.1996. THE total taxable wealth was arrived at Rs.3,17,43,100/- and the wealth tax payable was determined at Rs.3,02,431/- and against that the petitioner filed an appeal. THE Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) passed an order dated 16.06.1997 revising the assessment. THEreafter the income-tax and wealth-tax liabilities were deducted and taxable wealth was arrived at Rs.1,34,99,600/- and the wealth tax payable was determined at Rs.1,19,996/- and with the interest under Section 17 (B) of the Act, the wealth-tax payable was determined at Rs.1,91,993/- for the assessment year 1993-1994. A show cause notice dated 30.07.1996 was issued calling upon her to show cause as to why prosecution proceedings under Section 35 (B) of the Act should not be initiated against her. In response to the show cause notice a reply dated 04.10.1996 was received from the authorized representative of the petitioner setting out the details for non-filing of the return. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was deliberately bent upon not to file her return of wealth tax at all and may be she has willingly welcomed the exparte assessment for reasons best known to her. It is further alleged that by deliberately failing to file the return of wealth the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 35 (B) of the Act. (iv) It is further alleged in the complaint that the complaint has been filed in pursuance of the sanction order dated 12.11.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central II), Chennai, under Section 35 (i) of the Act. THE said sanction order was filed along with the complaint. (v) Since the complaint had been filed by the respondent who is a public servant sworn statement of the respondent was not recorded and on a perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint and on being prima facie satisfied that a case has been made out under Section 35 (B) of the Act the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 08.12.1997 and process was ordered to be issued. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash all further proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.263 of 1997 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence ? I), Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008 on the following grounds:- At the time of filing the complaint except the complaint and sanction order no other document was filed though in the complaint 11 specified documents have been mentioned and under Item 12 it is mentioned ?XII and other connected documents?. During the pendency of the complaint an application for discharge has been filed and on coming to know that none of the documents mentioned in the complaint have been filed before the Court a copy application was filed in C.A.No.3100 of 2007 dated 23.07.2007. On the said copy application the following office note was made, namely, ?Submitted : At the time of giving the complaint list of documents mentioned in list have not been filed. Hence it is submitted necessary orders may be passed in this regard?. To the above note the Court passed an order to the following effect:- ?Call for the records from the complainant. Sd/-.. 30.7.2007.? It is contended by the petitioner that cognizance has been taken only on the mere averments or recitals in the complaint without any supporting documents. It is further contended that the complaint of facts which constitutes an offence does not mean that the complaint alone and it necessarily needs the supporting documents connected with the complaint. It is further contended that the non-filing of any document along with the complaint including the sanction order could only mean that the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance has not applied his mind nor were there sufficient materials to form any opinion so as to issue the process. The wordings of Section 190 (1) (a) and Section 204 Cr.P.C., illustrate that not only the material facts but also the material particulars have to be necessarily included along with the complaint at the initiation or commencement of proceedings before the Magistrate. In fine, according to the petitioner, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on the ground that the cognizance taken by the Court on 18.12.1997 in the absence of documents being produced before the Court and merely on the basis of the recitals in the complaint is contrary to law and it is incapable of satisfying either Section 190 or Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.,
(3.) IN the above Criminal Original Petition the respondent has filed a counter inter-alia contending as follows:- The complaint is filed for the offence under Section 35 (B) of the Act for wilful failure to file the return of wealth for the assessment year 1993-1994 and such return has not been filed even up to this date and as such the offence is still continuing in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1986 (1) SCC 445 = (1986) 157 ITR 330 (Maya Rani Punj v CIT). The petitioner has suppressed the filing of Crl.O.P.Nos.2759 and 5378 of 1998 before this Court which were dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated 06.03.1998 and 06.02.2001, respectively, and about the time limit fixed by this Court for disposal of the cases. The petitioner has also suppressed the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.5854 of 2001, 3907 of 2002 and 13179 of 2002 whereby the time for disposal of the case was extended periodically. Ever since the filing of the complaint the trial has not progressed because of the conduct of the petitioner. IN view of the dismissal of the earlier two quash petitions the present Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable. The present contention raised in the above petition could have been raised and canvassed by the petitioner in the earlier quash petitions and the petitioner has no right to file the quash petitions repeatedly seeking the very same relief. In the counter various dates on which the case stood adjourned and the reasons for such adjournments have been stated. It is stated that so far 180 hearings have taken place without examining even a single witness even though prosecution is ready with its witnesses and documents from the day one. On 19.05.2008 P.W.1 was examined in part after the petition for adjournment by the petitioner was dismissed. For the past 11 years only one witness was examined in part. It is further stated that two witnesses have already retired and they are aged more than 70 years and two other witnesses are at the verge of retirement shortly. On the aforesaid contentions the respondent is praying for dismissal of the above Criminal Original Petition.;