Judgment : 1. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above criminal original petition, are setout below:- (i) The respondent herein preferred a complaint against the petitioner under Section 35B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The said complaint has been taken on file as E.O.CC. No. 263 of 2007 and the same is pending for trial on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. The petitioner filed a discharge application in Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent has also filed its counter statement and the petitioner herein has also filed a reply statement. It is also seen that the petitioner has filed additional grounds in Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001. (ii) According to the petitioner, the said criminal miscellaneous petition was posted for enquiry on 12.11.2007 and on that date the petitioner insisted that the petition should be taken up for hearing and to that effect a memo has also been filed. The petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 12.11.2007 praying the Court not to examine the witnesses till the disposal of the discharge application. The said petition has been numbered as criminal miscellaneous petition No. 3099 of 2007. By an order dated 12.11.2007 the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.1) has dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Court in the above criminal original petition. 2. K. Ramaswamy learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Income Tax cases takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard K. Venkatramani learned senior counsel for N. Jyothi learned counsel for the petitioner and K. Ramasamy learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Income Tax cases for the respondent. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 was filed under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.10.2000 and from the year 2001 the same is pending and without disposing of the said petition the Court below is insisting for the examination of witnesses. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 was filed under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.10.2000 and from the year 2001 the same is pending and without disposing of the said petition the Court below is insisting for the examination of witnesses. Learned senior counsel further submitted that when the petitioner insisted for the disposal of the discharge petition and prayed for the postponement of the examination of the witnesses after the disposal of the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has erroneously dismissed Crl. M.P. No. 3099 of 2007 filed under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by observing as follows:- “Taking up the discharge petition prior to the commencement of trial under Section 245(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is only an exception. The general rule is examination of witnesses under Section 245(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. Here also the defence counsel has not produced any documents that in this case also discharge petition may be taken up on priority, stating that charges are groundless. Hence this discharge petition may be taken up for disposal after recording the evidence under Section 245(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence at this stage this petition is dismissed.” According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the above said order passed by the Court below is against law and the learned Magistrate ought to have taken up the discharge application and disposed of the same one way or other and without disposing of the discharge petition and keeping the same pending, the Court below is insisting for the examination of the witnesses which according to the learned senior counsel is against all cannons of law and justice. 5. Countering the said submissions the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent submitted that Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 filed under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable and the same can be taken up only after recording of the evidence of witnesses as contemplated in Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent before examining the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution the above petition could not be considered. 6. I have carefully considered the above said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent before examining the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution the above petition could not be considered. 6. I have carefully considered the above said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Admittedly the complaint came to be filed as early as on 8.12.1997 and for the past nearly ten years the case is kept pending. The petition in Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 seeking discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed as early as on 1.10.2000, but yet the same is kept pending for the past seven years. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the petition is maintainable under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereas, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent the petition is not maintainable under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not understandable as to why the said petition filed under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as early as on 7.10.2000 is kept pending for the past seven years. As seen from the memo filed in Crl. M.P. No.3099 of 2007 arguments on the discharge petition seem to have been advanced for about one-and-half hours and thereafter the petition seems to have been adjourned. The question regarding the maintainability of the petition under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its acceptability on merits could and ought to have been gone into by the Court below and the said petition should have been disposed of on merits, but instead the Court below posted the case for examination of the witnesses keeping the said petition pending. Such a procedure in the considered view of this Court is against law and the same cannot be countenanced. When the petitioner seeks to get herself discharged contending that the charges levelled against the petitioner are groundless, it is incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate to have considered the same on merits and disposed of the petition at the earliest. The reasons stated for dismissing Crl. M.P. No. 3099 of 2007 are not in consonance with law and the same are unsustainable and therefore the said order has to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. 7. The reasons stated for dismissing Crl. M.P. No. 3099 of 2007 are not in consonance with law and the same are unsustainable and therefore the said order has to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. 7. The above criminal original petition is disposed of with the following directions:- .(i) The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.1), Egmore, Chennai - 8, shall dispose of Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and the respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order positively. (ii) The petitioner as well as the respondent shall co-operate with the Court below in disposing of the said petition within the above said stipulated time without seeking any adjournment. (iii) Till the disposal of Crl. M.P. No. 3457 of 2001 the examination of witnesses in the case may be deferred. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Magistrate shall apply his judicial mind to the contentions put forth by either side without in any way being influenced by whatever is said in this order. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.