TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Magistrate's summons quashed due to non-compliance with jurisdictional rules; case remanded for statutory adherence.</h1> <h3>Mr. Gautam Dinesh Radia Versus Union of India and Income Tax Department Through Deputy Director of Income Tax Deputy Director of Income Tax Government of Goa,</h3> The court quashed and set aside the Magistrate's order dated 18.2.2022, which issued summons to the accused without complying with Section 202(1) of ... Black Money - Validity of summons issued by Magistrate - territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate - Accused committed offence under Section 50 of the Act - Petitioner/accused is resident of Mumbai. Complaint is lodged to the learned Magistrate sitting at Panaji - non-compliance of sub section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing process/summons - HELD THAT:- Magistrate Compliant is lodged under Section 200 read with Section 50 of the Act. Accused/petitioner is resident of Mumbai that is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate. There is no material to show that Magistrate before issuing process, complied with mandatory requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. thus it is clear that learned Magistrate without compliance of such mandatory provision, issued process against the accused. In view of the above observations of the Apex Court in case of Odi Jerang, such order cannot be sustained and accordingly order needs interference. The impugned order of issuing summons to the accused is hereby quashed and set aside. However, matter is remanded to concerned Magistrate for compliance of provisions under sub section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing summons. Issues:The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.2.2022 by which Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused.Jurisdictional Issue:The petitioner is a resident of Mumbai and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The mandate of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. was not followed before issuing summons. The complaint was lodged by the officer of the department, and no interference is warranted.Legal Precedents:In the case of Odi Jerang Vs Nabajyoti Baruah and others, the Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Non-compliance with this provision may result in a failure of justice. The decisions in the cases of Manmohan Singh Vs State of Goa and Salcete Pharma Vs Drugs Inspector also emphasized the importance of complying with Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. before issuing process/summons.Decision:The impugned order of issuing summons to the accused was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the concerned Magistrate for compliance with the provisions under subsection (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing summons. The rule was made absolute, and all contentions of the department regarding merits were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
