Summon under Black Money Act-Allowing additional documents u/s 311 Cr.P.C. not amendment of complaint

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 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
• PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
• CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
• Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
• For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated