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 Court acting under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was bound in law to hold a preliminary inquiry before directing prosecution, and whether the material before the Company Judge justified the prosecution order in respect of Mohammad Tahir.
Analysis: The wording of section 476 conferred discretion on the Court to make such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thought necessary, and did not impose a mandatory requirement of inquiry in every case. The material placed before the Company Judge was treated as sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and in the circumstances no preliminary inquiry was regarded as necessary. The challenge that the Company Judge lacked jurisdiction as a Court was not pressed.
Conclusion: The objection based on absence of a preliminary inquiry failed, and the order directing prosecution was upheld against Mohammad Tahir.
Final Conclusion: The appeal of Mohammad Tahir was dismissed on the merits of the section 476 objection, while the connected matter concerning K.S. Saadat Ali Khan was left pending with interim protection.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves the holding of a preliminary inquiry to the discretion of the Court, and a prosecution order will not be invalid merely because no such inquiry was held where the available material discloses a prima facie case.
TaxTMI 
