JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O-I) Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.3147 & 3148 of 2013, respectively in E.O.C.C.Nos.181 & 182 of 1991.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. The fourth accused is the revision petitioner herein.

3. These criminal revision petitions are filed against the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences I, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.3147 & 3148 of 2013, respectively in E.O.C.C.Nos.181 and 182 of 1991, respectively.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax and after perusal of the order, the chequed history of the case is as under:

4(i) originally two complaints were filed against the accused herein and others in E.O.C.C.Nos.181 and 182 of 1991, for the offences under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 read with 511 of IPC for 2 Assessment years namely 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. On appearance of the accused, Crl.M.P.No.23 of 1993 was filed under Section 218 of Cr.P.C., by the accused for clubbing of E.O.C.C.No.182 of 1991 along with E.O.C.C.No.181 of 1991 since the issues relating to the complaints were the same in both the cases. The said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 28.01.1993 on a No objection endorsed by the complainant. Accordingly, the cases were clubbed and evidence was recorded jointly, charges were framed under the above Sections with 2 counts on each of the said charge. Thereafter, the witnesses were cross examined.

4(ii) The complainant’s counsel filed a memo for reasons stated herein praying the lower Court to frame separate charges in both the cases and also an application in Crl.M.P.No.1015/2014 & 1016/2014 under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., for altering the charge and the said memo and applications were allowed by order dated 14.08.2014.

4(iii) In the meanwhile, the complainant filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.277 of 2013 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to examine additional witness and the said application was allowed by an order dated 03.03.2011.

4(iv) thereafter, based on the evidence of P.W.7, the complainant filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.3147/2013 to frame an additional charge under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act for non-payment of tax arrears. The said petition was allowed by order dated 24.11.2016 and the present revision is against the said order. Framing of additional charges based upon the additional evidences let in after 26 years of persecution is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

4(v) the allegation in the complaint filed in 1991 was that the petitioner was in the trade of manufacturing and sale of Pesticides and Chemicals for agricultural purpose and was also engaged in Research activities. On 30.06.1983, the petitioner filed return of Income for the Assessment year 1983-84 claiming a loss of Rs.5,74,033/- wherein a Capital Expenditure of Rs.1,24,10,880/- was claimed on Scientific Research relating to his business. The above said sum included a claim of Rs.59,88,893/- being the cost of purchase of Land and Building at No.62, Spur Tank Road, Chetpet, Chennai.

4(vi) The First accused Company was having their Research and Development wing at Padappai and Thiruvottiyur and was recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under Section 25(1) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As suggested by the study team of ICAR, the accused Company wanted to have a Centralised Laboratory within the City of Madras for its Process and Development work and accordingly the above mentioned property was purchased. But the said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the property