Ms. Usha Anand and Vs. Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Ms. Usha Anand and ;mohan Anand vs Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 03, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702197

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/702197
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: J.D. Kapoor, J.
Decided On: Sep 03, 2003
Case Number: Criminal M (M) Nos. 3586, 3590 and Crl. M. Nos. 4837-38 and 4844-45 of 2003
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - There can be no worse case of failure of justice. 3. Merely because the complainant happens to be a department of the Government, that does not mean it is immune from the provisions of procedural law as well as the fundamental rights of an accused.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 21; Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 35B and 35C

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ms. Usha Anand and ;mohan Anand

Advocate O.S. Bajpai and; V.N. Jha, Advs

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner and ors.

Advocate Sayem Sabharwal, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 21; Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 35B and 35C
Reported In: (2003)185CTR(Del)350; [2003]264ITR14(Delhi)

Excerpt

- - there can be no worse case of failure of justice. 3. merely because the complainant happens to be a department of the government, that does not mean it is immune from the provisions of procedural law as well as the fundamental rights of an accused......26 occasions the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence. the complainant is a government department still no evidence has been recorded till date. 2. the details of proceedings and dates given in para. 25 of the petition, tell a very sorry tale and the infraction of the fundamental right of the accused enshrined in article 21 of the constitution of india, that every accused charged with a criminal offence is entitled for expeditious trial. for eight long years the complainant has not been able to produce the pre-charge evidence nor has the trial court been able to procure the same. there can be no worse case of failure of justice. 3. merely because the complainant happens to be a department of the government, that does not mean it is immune from the provisions of procedural law as well as the fundamental rights of an accused. the complainant being the department of government presumed that it is law unto itself and thereforee took the court for granted. every complainant is equal before law and is governed by the procedure and provisions of the code of criminal procedure. no department of the government who files a complaint could be allowed to go into soporific slumber after filing the complaint and setting the machinery of court in motion. 4. however, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after this petition was filed one witness has been recorded by the learned trial court towards pre-charge evidence. in view of this statement and in view of the long and procrastinated proceedings it is directed that the learned trial court shall record the remaining evidence on day-to-day basis and decide the question of framing of charge positively within one month, failing which the proceedings against the petitioner shall stand quashed as no court can be taken for a ride. 5. till the order as to the consideration of the charge is passed, the petitioner shall be exempted from personal appearance. 6. the petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Full Judgment

J. D. KAPOOR J.

1. This petition can be disposed of at the threshold as the chronological details about the dates of hearing fixed by the learned trial court for the purpose of pre-summoning evidence manifestly demonstrate the abuse of the process of the court. After summoning the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 35B/35C of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, prescribing a minimum sentence of six months the learned trial court fixed the matter for the first time on April 5, 1995, for pre-charge evidence. More than eight long years have passed. On as many as 26 occasions the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence. The complainant is a Government department still no evidence has been recorded till date.

2. The details of proceedings and dates given in para. 25 of the petition, tell a very sorry tale and the infraction of the fundamental right of the accused enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that every accused charged with a criminal offence is entitled for expeditious trial. For eight long years the complainant has not been able to produce the pre-charge evidence nor has the trial court been able to procure the same. There can be no worse case of failure of justice.

3. Merely because the complainant happens to be a department of the Government, that does not mean it is immune from the provisions of procedural law as well as the fundamental rights of an accused. The complainant being the department of Government presumed that it is law unto itself and thereforee took the court for granted. Every complainant is equal before law and is governed by the procedure and provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No department of the Government who files a complaint could be allowed to go into soporific slumber after filing the complaint and setting the machinery of court in motion.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that after this petition was filed one witness has been recorded by the learned trial court towards pre-charge evidence. In view of this statement and in view of the long and procrastinated proceedings it is directed that the learned trial court shall record the remaining evidence on day-to-day basis and decide the question of framing of charge positively within one month, failing which the proceedings against the petitioner shall stand quashed as no court can be taken for a ride.

5. Till the order as to the consideration of the charge is passed, the petitioner shall be exempted from personal appearance.

6. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2003 Same Parties Ms. Usha Anand and ;mohan Anand vs Assistant Commissioner and... Same Subject Criminal Same Judge J.D. Kapoor, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 21; Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Se...

Criminal