TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows amendment of complaint to add respondent name for fair proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code section 482.</h1> <h3>Income-Tax Officer Versus Balaji Chit Funds And Others</h3> Income-Tax Officer Versus Balaji Chit Funds And Others - [1988] 170 ITR 12, 69 CTR 171, 38 TAXMANN 47 Issues:1. Invocation of inherent jurisdiction to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent.2. Filing of complaint against accused-respondents and another individual for various offenses.3. Dismissal of petitions to amend the complaints by the Judicial First Class Magistrate.4. Opposition by the accused on the ground of no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to amend the complaint.Analysis:1. The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent, who represented the firm of the first accused. The petitioner sought to rectify the omission of properly describing the first accused as being represented by the managing partner, as it could impact the proceedings against the first accused.2. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the accused-respondents and another individual for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act. The issue arose during the arguments on petitions to quash the proceedings whether the first accused was properly represented, leading to the filing of petitions to amend the complaints.3. The Judicial First Class Magistrate had dismissed the petitions to amend the complaints, stating that such amendments cannot be made when the case is pending. However, the High Court clarified that the inherent powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code could be utilized when there is no specific provision in the Code to address a particular situation, as in this case.4. The accused opposed the petitions to amend the complaints, arguing that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for such amendments. The High Court emphasized that the omission to properly describe the first accused as being represented by the managing partner could impact the outcome of the proceedings and ordered the requested amendment to be allowed.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitions and ordered the requested amendment to the complaint, emphasizing the importance of properly describing the accused to ensure fair proceedings and outcomes.
TaxTMI 