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: Whether a petition invoking inherent jurisdiction was maintainable to challenge, in one composite proceeding, the order taking cognizance, the order rejecting discharge, the order framing charges, and the entire criminal proceeding, and whether the petitioner could seek conversion of the petition into a criminal revision after expiry of limitation.
Analysis: The inherent power preserved by Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is wide but must be exercised sparingly, to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The revisional remedy under Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a distinct statutory remedy intended to correct illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error, and a party who fails to avail that remedy within limitation cannot ordinarily use inherent jurisdiction as a substitute. The challenge here was directed against multiple independent judicial orders passed at different stages of the proceeding, each resting on a separate judicial application of mind, and the petition was filed belatedly after the discharge application had been rejected, charges had been framed, and trial had advanced with examination of witnesses. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petition was an impermissible attempt to bypass the statutory revisional forum and to reopen issues at an advanced stage of trial.
Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable and the request to convert it into a criminal revision was also declined.
Final Conclusion: The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction could not be invoked to defeat the statutory revisional scheme or to challenge multiple stage-specific orders by a belated composite petition after the trial had progressed.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers may be used only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a belated substitute for an available revisional remedy to challenge separate orders passed at different stages of a criminal proceeding.
TaxTMI 
