9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JUDMENT C. HONNIAH J.-These revision petitions are directed against the orders passed in C. Co. Nos. 1622, 1623, 1624, 1625 and 1626 of 1969 by the Munsiff and 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 petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be dismissed. At that stage, the Income-tax Officer filed an application under section 540, Criminal Procedure Code, stating that due to inadvertence, sanction obtained 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 le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een produced along with the complaint. That does not mean that the Magistrate should look into every document that is put forward by the prosecution. It is the duty of the 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to recall P. W. 1 for this purpose and it is open to the court to look into the sanction produced by the prosecution and make use of it or reject the same. That is not 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
