The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prima facie evidence for framing charges and the limitations on considering external materials for discharge petitions and quash petitions.

1. This revision is filed against the order of dismissal of the discharge petition, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai in M.P.No.1914 of 2007 in E.O.C.C.No.179 of 1985 dated 07.08.2007.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the petitioner has been falsely and unnecessarily implicated in the case and that she has no nexus, but, for the fact that she is the wife of the first accused. He would further contend that in this case, even according to the complaint itself barring one allegation of encashment of a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,690/- from a fictitious person, there is no other allegation as against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would further contend that, earlier the petitioner filed a petition to discharge, but it was dismissed and against that, a revision was preferred before this Court and that was also dismissed, but subsequently, the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that there is an assessment order pertaining to the year 1984-85 which is the relevant year for the complaint made by the Income Tax Authority and because of the subsequent development, a second application for discharge was filed. But even that was dismissed at a threshold without giving any opinion on the order, namely, the subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the lower court has committed grave error in coming to the conclusion without looking into the order and no finding is given but dismissed the discharge petition only on the ground that the earlier application for discharge was dismissed and it was upheld by this Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision is filed.

4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), brought to the notice of this Court that it is a classic example of a case being dragged on for years together. In this connection, he also referred to the revision filed by the very same parties, which has been dismissed by this Court and which is reported in [2006] 285 ITR 402 (Mad) (Hema Mohnot versus State by Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Administration)), in which also this Court has held that this is a classic example as to how the criminal case could be protracted for several decades. Inspite of such a finding given by this Court, even, as early as in the year 2006, the petitioner had the audacity to file yet another discharge petition citing the very same reasons and only adding that the assessment order for the year 1984-85 is filed which is nothing but to drag on the matter.

5. In this connection, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), would also vehemently point out referring to the various pages in the complaint, namely, paragraph 2.15 in page no.5, paragraph 5.1 in page no.9, paragraph 5.1 in page no.10, paragraph 5.2 in page no.10, paragraph 5.3 in page no.12, paragraph 14.2 in page no.24, paragraph 17.3 in page no.28 and paragraph 19 in page no.31 which says about A12 the present petitioner and that the petitioner is not only the wife of the first accused but she is also a party to the crime. The house was raided and many documents were seized. Therefore, at the time of framing of the charge what all required is only to have a prima facie evidence to record. There is a charge in this case, the offence has been clearly made out.

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Taxes), would further contend that even by the decision of this Court, which is reported in [2006] 285 ITR 402 (Mad) (Hema Mohnot versus State by Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (Administration)), this Court has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie evidence and also brought to the notice of this Court that merely by production of a document, the Court need not consider those extra-ordinary documents for the purpose of arriving to frame a charge. In this connection, he also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 (Amit K