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 the order dismissing the application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be set aside and the matter reconsidered after notice to the Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement.
Analysis: Cash seized in a criminal case had been produced before the Magistrate, and the petitioner claimed to be the employer of the person from whom it was seized. The Income Tax Department had already reported that notices issued to the person concerned had evoked no response. The Court accepted that the Magistrate's dismissal was justified on the material before him, but found the request for reconsideration reasonable because the petitioner sought a fresh hearing with the concerned authorities impleaded. The Court also permitted the Income Tax Department to file a claim petition, which the Magistrate would have to adjudicate along with the application.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was directed to be reconsidered after impleading and hearing the Income Tax Department and the Directorate of Enforcement.