Summon under Black money act-Allowing additional documents by ACCM Court u/s 311 Cr.P.C. not amendment of complaint
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3481 (2021) (04) AC
In the instant case, revision petitions had been filed before the Sessions Court by the accused against the impugned order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACCM).
That accused was summoned by the ACCM Court/Trial Court under the black money act. After a gap of approx. one month, the trial court allowed the application of the Income Tax Officer under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking placing on record additional document running into more than 100 pages.
It was the case of the accused that such application for filing additional documents tantamounted to making amendment in the criminal complaint or filing a supplementary complaint, which is impermissible under the Cr.P.C. and even otherwise under the provisions of black money Act.
It was argued that provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked in a case of oral testimony and not for producing additional document on record. It was further argued that section 200 Cr.P.C. does not provide for making any amendment in criminal complaint unlike order VI rule 17 of CPC.
It was further argued that there is no provision akin to section 173(8) Cr.P.C. As such, no supplementary complaint is permissible. Further, the Accused also relied upon case laws in this regard.
Further, it was contended that no right to file additional documents was reserved by the ITO. It was stated that the accused can be put to trial only for documents and testimony which was relied upon for summoning such accused under section 204 Cr.P.C.
It is further argued that cognizance order in itself is wrong and misplaced as such documents which are sought to be placed on record vide the application under section 311 Cr.P.C., was not on record at the time of passing such order.
It is further argued that at least fresh sanction is required even if it is presumed cognizance is not bad. It is further argued that purpose of section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to fill lacuna in the case of prosecution/complainant. It is further argued that a valuable right has accrued in favour of accused by non filing of such document earlier and same cannot be taken away.
It was further stated that serious prejudice would be caused to the revisionist by allowing such application by the trial court.
The Hon’ble Sessions judge observed that it was rightly observed by trial court that such documents are relevant for the present trial and further that same are already considered in sanction and referred in the complaint also.
Also, it was rightly observed by the trial court that accused would not be prejudiced by placing on record such documents, as he will get ample opportunity to cross examine the complainant witness including regarding such document.
The Sessions Court rejected the plea that placing on record such documents would amount to amendment to the complaint as otherwise they had been mentioned in the complaint already.
The Sessions Court observed that the revision petition was not challenging the order of summoning but order on such applicate u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Further, the Court stated that the nomenclature of the application is not relevant and substance thereof is to be seen. The paramount consideration in a criminal trial is to find out the truth.
It was held that there was no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed and there was no occasion to interfere or set aside the impugned order
CBDT has issued revised requirements of DIN referencing in Income Tax notices etc. and exceptions Section 292B of Income Tax…
When property purchased and sold within same year both sale and purchase price has to be adopted by applying same…
ICAI defers the mandatory effective date of SQM 1 and SQM 2 The Council of ICAI, at its 451st Meeting…
Addition deleted as it was made on the basis of letter of District Magistrate which not recovered during the search…
Banks not required to deduct TDS under Income Tax Act 2025 on interest income below threshold limit - CBDT clarification …
Allegations of delay in TDS deposit, role of person responsible are disputed factual matters which must be tested at trial…