TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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, in a summons case arising out of a complaint, the accused is entitled to be heard at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and whether the Magistrate can drop the proceedings if no prima facie case is made out; and whether the accused may be directed to seek exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court.
Analysis: In summons cases, the stage under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a mechanical formality. The Magistrate must examine the complaint and material to determine whether commission of an offence is disclosed and whether a prima facie case exists. If no case is made out, the Magistrate is not bound to proceed and may drop the proceedings. This approach was held to be consistent with the distinction between summons cases and warrant cases, with the principles of natural justice, and with the need to prevent unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. The Court held that the power to do so is supported by the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court where the Code contains no express bar. The Court also held that the petitioners should raise their objections before the Trial Court and that their application for exemption from personal appearance should be made there, with the Trial Court to consider it in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The accused are entitled to be heard at the stage of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in complaint summons cases, and the Magistrate may discharge or drop the proceedings if no prima facie case is made out. The petitioners were permitted to urge their objections before the Trial Court, and the matter was disposed of on those terms.
Final Conclusion: The complaint-side proceedings were left to be tested before the Magistrate at the notice stage, with liberty to the accused to seek appropriate relief there and with no adjudication on the merits by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: In a summons complaint case, the Magistrate at the stage of Section 251 must apply judicial mind to see whether a prima facie offence is disclosed, and if not, may drop the proceedings; the accused cannot be compelled to face a trial where no offence is made out.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
