TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: (i) Whether an applicant must first approach the Court of Session before moving the High Court in revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether an applicant must first approach the Court of Session before seeking anticipatory bail from the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether an applicant must first approach the Court of Session before moving the High Court in revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Under the new Code, the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent revisional jurisdiction, but the statutory bar operates only against approaching both forums successively. The provision confers a right to choose either forum. A rule framed by the High Court cannot curtail that statutory choice or require a party to approach the Sessions Judge first.
Conclusion: An applicant cannot be compelled to approach the Court of Session before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issue (ii): Whether an applicant must first approach the Court of Session before seeking anticipatory bail from the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail, and it contains no requirement that the Sessions Court be approached first. Because the provision concerns personal liberty, no additional procedural restriction can be imposed by practice or rule. A rejected application before the Sessions Court does not bar a direct application to the High Court under Section 438.
Conclusion: An applicant is entitled to apply directly to the High Court for anticipatory bail without first approaching the Court of Session.
Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permits direct access to the High Court both in revision and for anticipatory bail, and any contrary High Court rule or practice is invalid to that extent.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session and does not require prior recourse to one forum, a procedural rule or practice cannot take away the party's statutory right to choose the forum.
TaxTMI 
