https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22254 The complaint was treated as prima facie validly authorised, and any alleged defect in authorisation was left for trial; it was not invalid on the ground of prior notice. The requirement under section 200 CrPC to examine the complainant and witnesses was held inapplicable because the complaint was filed by an Income-tax Officer acting as a public servant in discharge of official duties at the instance of the Commissioner under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the summoning order was a cryptic order that did not meet the requirements of section 204 CrPC, so it was held unsustainable and quashed. en-us Mon, 02 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:28:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22254 The complaint was treated as prima facie validly authorised, and any alleged defect in authorisation was left for trial; it was not invalid on the ground of prior notice. The requirement under section 200 CrPC to examine the complainant and witnesses was held inapplicable because the complaint was filed by an Income-tax Officer acting as a public servant in discharge of official duties at the instance of the Commissioner under section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the summoning order was a cryptic order that did not meet the requirements of section 204 CrPC, so it was held unsustainable and quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22254