| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 2141 1991 SLD 2141 (1991) 192 ITR 70 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
UJAGAR SINGH, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
UJAGAR SINGH, J.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Pran Nath
v.
Chief Judicial Magistrate
Law:
Section:
Section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Offence and Prosecution - Prosecution to be at instance of Chief Commissioner/Commissioner - Complaint was filed by ITO under section 279 - Trial Court passed cryptic order summoning accused - Whether order summoning accused did not satisfy provisions of section 204 of Code and, hence, it was bad and liable to be quashed - Held, yes FACTS The ITO had filed a complaint acting as a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. The Trial Court had, passed a cryptic order saying that the complaint was presented and it be registered and accused be summoned. On writ : HELD The order of the Trial Court did not satisfy provisions of section 204 of Code. The order summoning the petitioner was bad and was not sustainable. The instant petition was, therefore, accepted and the summoning order was quashed. The trial court was directed to pass an order in accordance with law. Note : The case was decided in favour of the assessee. V.K. Jindal for the Petitioner. A.K. Mittal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ujagar Singh, J.-This petition arises out of facts similar to those involved in Criminal Writ Petition No. 454 of 1986, decided separately. Order of summoning is also exactly the same. Almost all the points relate to the facts to be gone into by the trial court, except the challenge to authorisation, annexure 'A', attached with the complaint, serving of prior notices and summoning order having been passed in routine fashion without application of mind. So far as authorisation of the complaint, vide annexure 'A' to the complaint, the original order of the said Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana, is concerned, I have held that prima facie annexure 'A' is sufficient to authorise the filing of the complaint and in case anything is found to be deficient by the complainant at the time of trial, it can be proved by leading evidence to show that all theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492