Income Tax Prosecution- Accused has no right to inspect judicial file till he is summoned by the Trial Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3668 (2023) (02) AC
Important Case Laws relied upon by parties:
National Bank of Oman vs Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 488
Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 435
Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. Vs. Najima Mamtaj & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 638
State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS andAnother, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222
Zee News Ltd. versus State & Anr., 2016 SCCOnLine Del 2392
Chandra Deo Singh versus Prokash ChandraBose, (1964) 1 SCR 639
In the instant case, the petitioner had filed a Criminal revision Petition before the Sessions Court challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court observing that an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was not required to be conducted and dismissal of the application for inspection of judicial record by the petitioner.
The Income Tax Department had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences for prosecution under Section 276C(1)/277/278/278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) read with Section 120B/191/199/200/204 of IPC, inter alia, against the accused petitioner.
It was contended that the trial Court infringed his precious right to inspect the judicial file and therefore, order dismissing application for inspection of judicial file was revisable order. It was contended that the Petitioner was a party to the judicial proceedings and he had a right to inspect the judicial file.
The Sessions Court observed that the reason for denial of inspection of the judicial file was that a petitioner is not a party till he is summoned. The trial Court was still conducting inquiry and the petitioner had not been summoned yet.
The Sessions Court concurred with the reasoning of the trial Court and opined that the petitioner had not yet been summoned. The case was at the stage of inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as a party till he is summoned.
It was also the case of the petitioner that the impugned order caused material prejudice to him as the trial Court formed final opinion that there is no need of conducting mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was contended that the petitioner was resident out of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and therefore, inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was mandatory
With respect of enquiry u/s 202 of CRPC, the Sessions Court opined that the judgments relied upon by the parties were relating to the cases where the accused persons were summoned and not for pre-summoning stage.
The Sessions Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner had yet not been summoned. The trial Court was still conducting inquiry. It could not be said that the trial Court had finally given its opinion that it will not conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may raise all legal issues / contentions, once he is summoned but not at this stage.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC
- Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV
- AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee
- ICAI Intermediate & Foundation Examinations to be held thrice in a year from May/June 2024
- Further extension of due date for filing of Form No. 10A/10AB to 30.06.2024 – CBDT Circular
