Section 202 Cr.P.C. not prescribe manner of holding enquiry. Benami Act summon upheld
In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe the manner of holding an enquiry under this provision. The summoning order under Benami Act passed after taking into consideration the averments made in a complainant filed by the Union of India through a public servant, after perusing the documents filed with the complaint and after recording a satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant, fulfills the requirement of holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4071 (2024) (06) HC
Important Case Laws relied upon:
Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Coop. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1749
Rosy v. State of Kerala: (2000) 2 SCC 230
Azim Premji v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 1956
Divyajot Singh Jendu v. Manikaran Analytics Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 200
In the instant case, an application was filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the validity of order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the trial court had taken cognizance of offence under Section 53 read with Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Benami Act) and he had been summoned to face trial.
The complaint was filed under Section 53 of Benami Act by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Initiating Officer, Benami Prohibition, Benami Unit after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 55 of the Benami Act.
During a search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 it came to the light that during the demonetisation period, the applicant received money from a bank account belonging to After inquiry, the matter was transferred to the Banami Prohibition Unit for initiating proceedings under Benami Act.
During further inquiry held by the Benami Prohibition Unit, the applicant admitted on oath that the cash deposited into the bank account another person was actually the applicant’s unaccounted cash, which was deposited during demonetization period and had been transferred to his bank account. The said other person also admitted in his statement that the amount deposited in his bank account in cash was a benami transaction.
The Additional Session Judge took cognizance of the alleged offence and summoned the applicant to face the trial.
The applicant assailed the validity of the summoning order on the sole ground that the applicant was residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which had passed the summoning order and, therefore, as per the statutory provision contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C., it was mandatory for the Court to have conducted an inquiry before taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicant.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that the Ministry of Finance, has issued a Notification whereby said Additional District & Sessions Judge Lucknow had been designated as the Special Court for the purpose of trial of offences punishable under the Benami Act for certain Districts, including District, where the cash amount was deposited in the Bank account and from where an amount was transferred to the Bank account of the applicant. Therefore, the Complaint had rightly been filed before the Special Court constituted under Section 50 of the Benami Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Section 202 Cr.P.C. merely directs that the Magistrate shall hold an enquiry inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Section 202 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe the manner of holding an enquiry under this provision. The Special Court had passed the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicant after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and after recording a satisfaction that from the averments made in the complaint and the documents filed with the complaint, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the limited enquiry which the Magistrate can hold at this stage is meant to ascertain whether any case for summoning the accused person is made out. The perusal of the averments made in the complaint made by the Union of India through a Public Servant and examination of the documents accompanying the complaint was sufficient for holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for recording a satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant. The summoning order passed after taking into consideration the averments made in a complainant filed by the Union of India through a public servant, after perusing the documents filed with the complaint and after recording a satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicant, fulfills the requirement of holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence and summoning the applicant to face the trial and in any case, it does not cause a failure of justice to the applicant.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- MCA prescribes period & fee for updating directors personal mobile number & email
- GST e-invoice-1 and e-invoice-2 Portals to be launched from 18.07.2024
- The Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Amendment Rules, 2024
- Clarification on GST rates & classification of goods as per GST Council 53rd meeting
- Clarifications on applicability of GST on certain services as per 53rd GST Council meeting
