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: (i) Whether non-compliance with the amended requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by itself vitiates the order issuing process against accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. (ii) Whether examination under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of a witness not specifically named in the complaint is illegal or prejudicial to the accused.
Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the amended requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by itself vitiates the order issuing process against accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Analysis: The amended provision uses mandatory language and requires greater scrutiny where the accused resides outside jurisdiction. However, the provision is an enabling procedural safeguard and does not touch the jurisdiction or competence of the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint. The consequence of breach is not stated in the statute and must therefore be assessed on the basis of prejudice and failure of justice under Section 465. The Court distinguished authorities where process was interfered with on their facts and held that those decisions do not lay down an inflexible rule that every non-compliance with Section 202 automatically invalidates the proceeding. Where the complaint and statements under Section 200 already disclose sufficient material to proceed, insisting on a redundant inquiry would be futile.
Conclusion: Non-compliance with the amended Section 202 does not by itself vitiate the proceeding or the order issuing process; prejudice must be shown.
Issue (ii): Whether examination under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of a witness not specifically named in the complaint is illegal or prejudicial to the accused.
Analysis: The Court held that it is not necessary that every supporting witness must be exhaustively named in the complaint. A complainant may produce a witness in support of the allegations, and such examination is not without jurisdiction. Since the accused will have the opportunity to contest the evidence in accordance with law, no prejudice was shown merely because the witness was not mentioned in the complaint petition.
Conclusion: Examination of the unnamed witness was not illegal and caused no prejudice.
Final Conclusion: The complaint proceeding was found to be maintainable, and the challenge to the issuance of process failed for want of demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural mandate to hold inquiry before summoning an accused residing beyond jurisdiction does not automatically vitiate process when the statute does not prescribe that consequence and the complaint materials already disclose sufficient ground to proceed; such breach must be tested on prejudice and failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
