TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court should invoke its inherent jurisdiction to direct the trial court to fix a date for questioning the accused under section 313(1)(a) and to frame charges in pending criminal complaints under the Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The complaints were already pending before the competent trial court, which had taken cognizance and was seized of the matter. Applications seeking a date for questioning the accused were also pending before that court. In these circumstances, the High Court held that no ground was made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the power is to be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court found no material showing delay or inaction by the trial court and held that directing the trial court in the manner sought would amount to interference with the conduct of the trial.
Conclusion: The request for supervisory direction was rejected, and the petitions were held not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere with the pending trial proceedings and left the matter to be proceeded with by the trial court in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be used to control ordinary trial procedure where the matter is already pending before the competent court and no abuse of process or failure of justice is shown.
TaxTMI 
