Authorisation and summoning in tax complaint: complaint sustained, but a cryptic summoning order was quashed for non-compliance.

The complaint was treated as prima facie validly authorised, and any alleged defect in authorisation was left for trial; it was not invalid on the ground of prior notice. The requirement under section 200 CrPC to examine the complainant and witnesses was held inapplicable because the complaint was filed by an Income-tax Officer acting as a public servant in discharge of official duties at the instance of the Commissioner under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the summoning order was a cryptic order that did not meet the requirements of section 204 CrPC, so it was held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint was validly authorised and whether the summoning order was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The authorisation annexed with the complaint was treated as prima facie sufficient to permit filing of the complaint, leaving any alleged deficiency to be examined at trial. The requirement of examining the complainant and witnesses under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable because the complaint was filed by an Income-tax Officer acting as a public servant in discharge of official duties, and the complaint was at the instance of the Commissioner as contemplated by section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order summoning the accused was, however, a cryptic one and did not satisfy the requirements of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The complaint was not found invalid on the ground of authorisation or prior notice, but the summoning order was held unsustainable and was quashed.

---