KING EMPEROR Vs. KASHI PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS revision is connected with Criminal Revision No. 71 of 1946 as the facts leading to the common point for determination are identical.
(2.) THE Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Cawnpore, filed two complaints against Kashi Prasad for his prosecution under Section 52, Income-tax Act, read with Section 177, Indian Penal Code, on the 14th August, 1944. THE complaints were transferred to the Court of the Additional City Magistrate on the 18th August. THE accused was summoned for the 9th September. He appeared that day. THE complainant did not appear. Certain necessary documents were also not filed. On the 12th October the Magistrate sent a letter to the complainant saying that the case had been adjourned thrice for want of prosecution and that the next date fixed was the 18th October. On the 18th October the Magistrate received a letter from the complainant. It reads as follows :-
I have the honour to request you kindly to send back the complaints filed in the above case because the records of the case are with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, and are not likely to be in our hands till the end of this week. THE complaints will be presented against with all the connected documents.
The Magistrate wrote on this letter :- Record be sent back.
The order sheet for this date said that the papers be sent back and the other papers be consigned to records.
(3.) ON the 6th July, 1945, the two complaints were received back with a letter. ON the 14th July the Court asked the complainant to file documents early and ordered that the files be taken out from the record room.
On the 5th September, 1945, the accused-applicant filed an objection to the revival of the proceedings on the main ground that the cases being summons cases, the withdrawal of the complaints on the 18th October, 1944, would be withdrawal under Section 248 Criminal Procedure Code, and its result would be the acquittal of the accused and that, therefore, he could not be tried on the same facts a second time. This objection of the accused applicant did not find favour with the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. It is, therefore, that the applicant has filed this revision. We are of opinion that the revision has no force.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.