https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10148 Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC cannot be used to direct ordinary trial steps when criminal complaints under the Income-tax Act are already pending before the competent trial court. The High Court noted that cognizance had been taken, applications for fixing a date for questioning the accused under section 313(1)(a) were pending, and no material showed delay, inaction, abuse of process, or failure of justice. Interference at that stage would amount to unwarranted control over trial management. The supervisory request was therefore rejected and the petitions were held not maintainable, leaving the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10148 Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC cannot be used to direct ordinary trial steps when criminal complaints under the Income-tax Act are already pending before the competent trial court. The High Court noted that cognizance had been taken, applications for fixing a date for questioning the accused under section 313(1)(a) were pending, and no material showed delay, inaction, abuse of process, or failure of justice. Interference at that stage would amount to unwarranted control over trial management. The supervisory request was therefore rejected and the petitions were held not maintainable, leaving the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10148