In the present case, the assessee claims residence at Krishnagiri and the assessment also took place there. The property sale also occurred within Krishnagiri. These facts raise a substantial doubt on the jurisdiction of the Madurai Court. The sanction order marked as Ex. P1, mentions only s. 276CC, while the complaint includes ss. 276, 276C and 276CC. Thus, the inclusion of charges beyond the scope of the sanction makes the complaint legally untenable at the threshold. While s. 278E provides for a presumption of culpable mental state, the same is rebuttable. However, whether the delay was wilful or due to bona fide reasons is a matter for trial, not summary rejection at discharge stage.The Trial Court erred in treating 53 month delay as fatal.Court held that the Trial Court misdirected itself by rejecting the discharge petition without properly appreciating the jurisdictional objections and the infirmities in the sanction order. While this Court does not adjudicate on factual aspects requiring evidence, the foundational lack of territorial jurisdiction and invalid sanction make out a prima facie case for discharge under s. 245 of Cr.P.C. The  Trial Court erred in treating 53 month delay as fatal; foundational lack of territorial jurisdiction and invalid sanction make out a prima facie case for discharge under s. 245 of Cr.P.C. (AY.2013-14)