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 the summoning order was sustainable in law in the absence of reasons and application of mind, and whether the matter required remand for passing a fresh speaking order.
Analysis: The order issuing process must reflect judicial application of mind and a finding that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. A criminal complaint cannot be carried forward mechanically, and the summoning order must show at least a prima facie satisfaction based on the complaint and material placed before the court. Here, the impugned order merely recited the complaint, the sanction order, and jurisdiction, but did not examine the nature of the allegations, the supporting material, or record any reason for taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The absence of reasons made the order inconsistent with the settled requirement that issuance of process be a reasoned judicial act.
Conclusion: The summoning order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the court below for passing a fresh speaking and reasoned order after hearing the parties.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned process was annulled for want of reasons, but the prosecution proceedings were not terminated and were directed to be reconsidered afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: An order issuing criminal process must disclose application of mind and a reasoned prima facie satisfaction that sufficient ground exists for proceeding; a non-speaking summoning order is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
