9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... First Class Magistrate, Chickmagalur. The main question to be decided in these revision petitions is whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the prayer to recall P. W. 1 to prove the alleged sanction to prosecute the petitioner for offences under section 276C of the Income-tax Act of 1961. In the complaint, the Income-tax Officer mentioned that he had obtained the authorisation to prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to prosecute the accused was not brought to the notice of the court and it was not exhibited for that reason and he requested the court to recall P.W. 1 and examine him to exhibit the sanction in the interest of justice. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the Income-tax Officer holding that the prosecution at the late stage cannot be allowed to fill up the gaps. It is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prosecution to bring it to the notice of the court at the relevant point of time that such a sanction is available and that may be looked into before deciding the case. But the reason given in this case is far from satisfactory. Inadvertence is not a reason to hold that the prosecution can, at any stage, recall a witness to produce the sanction. If. inadvertently, sanction to prosecute the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question in these revision petitions to be decided. At any rate, it is a matter left open for the Magistrate to decide whether to make use of the sanction now available or not and decide the case according to law. The parties may be permitted to address arguments on all matters including this one. The request of the Income-tax Officer cannot be granted. With these observations, the revision p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
