Summoning order u/ss 53 and 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, was passed based on the assumption that the cash was the beneficial property of the applicant accumulated through illegal gratification. However, the court failed to apply its mind as required by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and Pepsi Foods Ltd. cases. The order merely summarized the complaint, sanction order, and jurisdiction without recording reasons for taking cognizance, prima facie satisfaction, or proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned summoning order contradicted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh, Pepsi Foods Ltd., and Mehmood UL Rehman cases. Therefore, the High Court set aside the summoning order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Summoning order u/ss 53 and 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, was passed based on the assumption that the cash was the beneficial property of the applicant accumulated through illegal gratification. However, the court failed to apply its mind as required by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and Pepsi Foods Ltd. cases. The order merely summarized the complaint, sanction order, and jurisdiction without recording reasons for taking cognizance, prima facie satisfaction, or proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned summoning order contradicted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh, Pepsi Foods Ltd., and Mehmood UL Rehman cases. Therefore, the High Court set aside the summoning order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
