TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondents (By Sri. Vivekananda Paniyala, Advocate Along With Sri. Sandeep Lahiri, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 And 2) ORDER The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (Revisional Court) in Crl. R.P. No.60/2015 by which, it allowed the revision petition and set aside the ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the accused and found that there was no application of mind before issuing process and consequently, it held that the order issuing process to the accused was patently erroneous, perverse and consequently allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 17.12.2014 issuing process to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of which cognizance was taken. He therefore, submits that the Trial Court mechanically issued process without applying its mind. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharathi Mittal Vs. CBI - (2015) 4 SCC 609 and contended that summoning the accused without recording proper reasons by the Court is incorrect and improper. He therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le under Section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994. This is something that the Trial Court must have considered. 8. Having regard to the fact that the order impugned before the Revisional Court did not show any clear application of mind and also did not indicate that the Trial Court was satisfied that an offence under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994 was committed, the Revisional Court ought t....