Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, acquitting the accused for the complainant's absence in a summons case, is a final order so as to bar review or restoration under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was punishable with imprisonment up to two years and was therefore triable as a summons case. In a summons case, Section 256 mandates acquittal of the accused when the complainant is absent, unless the court adjourns the hearing for reasons recorded. Once the Magistrate chooses to acquit, the order is final. The distinction between Section 256 and Section 249 is material, because Section 249 concerns discharge in warrant cases and does not apply to a summons case. Since the earlier order had resulted in acquittal, Section 362 barred any review or alteration except for clerical or arithmetical correction.
Conclusion: The restoration order was without jurisdiction and the earlier order of dismissal resulting in acquittal could not be reviewed.
Final Conclusion: The accused succeeded, the complaint stood dismissed in law by reason of acquittal, and the attempted restoration was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal recorded under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a summons case is a final order and cannot be reviewed or altered under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.