https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753731 A complaint by a public servant, filed through an authorised income tax officer in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, was treated as distinct from a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, so the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses in the same manner. Section 202 CrPC was applied as an inquiry provision aimed at deciding whether sufficient ground exists to proceed, without any fixed mode of inquiry. On the complaint, accompanying documents, and admissions recorded in the statutory proceedings, the Court found the material sufficient to justify cognizance and issuance of process, and the challenge to the summoning order failed. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753731 A complaint by a public servant, filed through an authorised income tax officer in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, was treated as distinct from a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, so the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant and witnesses in the same manner. Section 202 CrPC was applied as an inquiry provision aimed at deciding whether sufficient ground exists to proceed, without any fixed mode of inquiry. On the complaint, accompanying documents, and admissions recorded in the statutory proceedings, the Court found the material sufficient to justify cognizance and issuance of process, and the challenge to the summoning order failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753731