R. JOHRI, SALES TAX OFFICER II Vs. VISHESHWAR DAYAL MITTAL
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. Johri, Sales Tax Officer Ii
Visheshwar Dayal Mittal
Click here to view full judgement.
Satish Chandra, J. -
(1.)THIS is an application Under Section 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure. It prays that the order dated 15.1.1965 passed by the Magistrate summoning the Petitioner Under Sections 465, 471 and 218, IPC be set aside.
(2.)THE Petitioner is a Sales Tax Officer. He passed an assessment order against the opposite party. The opposite party has filed a complaint under various sections of the IPC alleging that the assessment orders were ante dated by the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate heard the evidence adduced in support of the complaint and by the impugned order directed that the accused be summoned. He held that prima facie the act of ante dating the order could not be said to have been done by the accused while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, but he further observed that he refrained from giving any decision on this point without hearing the accused. He kept the point open.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has alleged that the bar of Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable on the face of the complaint. The question whether the act of ante dating the assessment order was done by the Sales Tax Officer while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty is a mixed question and is not free from difficulty. The learned Magistrate was justified in taking the view he did and in keeping the question open. The Petitioner should have appeared before the Magistrate and raised his objections there, enabling the Magistrate to decide the point after hearing both the parties.
(3.)IN the circumstances it is not a fit case for interference at this stage.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.