9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 50 of the Act. Accused/petitioner is resident of Mumbai that is beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate. There is no material to show that Magistrate before issuing process, complied with mandatory requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. thus it is clear that learned Magistrate without compliance of such mandatory provision, issued process against the accused. In view of the above observations of the Apex Court in case of Odi Jerang, such order cannot be sustained and accordingly order needs interference. The impugned order of issuing summons to the accused is hereby quashed and set aside. However, matter is remanded to concerned Magistrate for compliance of provisions under sub section (1) of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was lodged by the officer of the department and therefore, no interference is warranted. 7. Rival contentions fall for consideration are as under:- 8. It is contended that compliant was filed before the concerned Magistrate through Deputy Director of Income Tax alleging therein that the accused committed offence under Section 50 of the Act. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is clear from the fact that basically the complaint is lodged under Section 50 of the Act. Petitioner/accused is resident of Mumbai. Complaint is lodged to the learned Magistrate sitting at Panaji. 9. Provisions of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. are therefore attracted. Since the petitioner/accused is resident of Mumbai that is beyond the jurisdiction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents. Considering the mandatory nature of sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC, in the facts of this case, non-compliance thereof will result into failure of justice. Hence, we find no error in the impugned order of remand passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 11. Mr Desa placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Manmohan Singh Vs State of Goa and 11 ors in Criminal Writ Petition No. 8 of 2022 decided on 6.3.2022 and Salcete Pharma and 4 ors Vs Drugs Inspector and anr. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2022 decided on 6.3.2022 i n support of his contentions. 12. In both these matters, it was observed that there is non-compliance of sub section (1) of Section 202 of Cr.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
