TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs. This can be discerned from the following words: "In order to expedite the proceedings, provisions for day-to-day trial of cases and prohibitory provisions with regard to grant of stay and exercise of powers of revision on interlocutory orders have also been included." 3. The prohibition is couched in a language admitting of no exception whatsoever, which is clear from the provision itself. The prohibition is incorporated in sub-section consists of three clauses. For all the three clauses the controlling non-obstante words are set out in the connecting portion as: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure 1973." 4. Hence none of the provisions in the Code could be invoked for circumventing any one of the bans enumerated in the sub-section. 5. Clause (a) of the sub-section prohibits reversal or alteration of any finding or sentence or order passed by a Special Judge on the ground of absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required for taking cognizance of an offence punishable in the Act, unless in the opinion of the appellate or revisional court "a failure of justice has in fact occasioned thereby." 6. Clause (b) con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hibition contained in sub-section (3) has been included in a separate Section by providing a separate distinct title. Be that as it may, that is no ground for by-passing the legislative prohibition contained in the sub-section. 10. I fully concur with the direction indicated by Variava J. in the judgment that the Registrar of each High Court shall list the cases in which such stay was granted by orders happened to be passed by such High Court and to board all such cases before the appropriate bench without further delay. This is to enable the High Court concerned to dispose of such matters in the light of this judgment. S.N. Variava, J. 11. Leave granted. 12. Heard parties. 13. This Appeal is against an Order dated 25th April, 2001. By this Order a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing an Order dated 8th July, 1994 passed by a Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called the said Act) has been dismissed. 14. On 8th July, 1984 the Trial Court took cognizance against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 420 467 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the said A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act. Certain amounts were imposed as penalty upon the assessee for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee preferred appeals and prayed for stay of recovery of the penalties. The Tribunal declined to grant stay on the ground that it had no power to do so. The High Court held that the Tribunal had the inherent power to stay and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application for stay in accordance with law. In appeal by the Income Tax Officer, this Court confirmed the findings of the High Court that the Tribunal had power to stay recovery. This Court held that the power of stay was incidental to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. It must immediately be noted that there was no statutory provision barring grant of stay. 19. Mr. Shishodia further submitted that both the High Courts and this Court have time and again exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings even under the said Act. He submitted that it takes a number of years for matters to reach hearing. He submitted that it was absolutely necessary that, during the pendency of such proceedings, there should be a stay of the trial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Salve submitted that inherent jurisdiction of a Court could not be exercised if there was a specific provision for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party or against an express bar of law engrafted in any other provision. He further submitted that inherent jurisdiction had to be very sparingly exercised only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. In support of this submission he relied upon the cases of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 1978CriLJ165 , Janata Deal vs. H.S. Chowdhary & others reported in 1993CriLJ600 and Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR2000SC498 . 24. We have heard the parties. Section 19(3)(c) of the said Act reads as follows: "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). X X X (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings." 25. It is thus to be seen that this Section provides: (a) that no court should stay the proceedings under the Act on an....