M/S. ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD. & ORS. Vs. THE STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-39
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 05,1976

M/S. ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD. And ORS. Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Sudhamoy Basu, J. - (1.)This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for review and/or recalling a judgment and order passed by us in Criminal Revision No, 274 of 1975 on the 27th of Jan., 1976.
(2.)The present application relates to Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 which was heard analogously with some other matters in which this petitioner was an opposite party. In course of hearing of the matters which were highly contested several points common to all the matters were argued at length, it is stated in the present petition that through inadvertence the question of limitation in respect of Revision No. 274 of 1975 was not dealt with by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and no submission was made on that point. While all other rules were discharged the rule in Criminal Revision case No. 274 of 1975 was made absolute as it was submitted and as there was no opposition to the submission that the complaint involved in that case was filed beyond the time specified under section 468 Cr. P.C. for filing of complaints to enable the Court to take cognisance thereof. It is stated in that petition that none of the learned Advocates appearing in that case for the different parties drew the attention of the Court to the Act 12 of 1974 (the Economic Offences Inapplicability of Limitation Act, 1974) which provides that the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be inapplicable to certain economic offences. The said Act provides a schedule which saves among others the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that relate to limitation. The present complaint was made in respect of an alleged contravention of the Income tax Act, 1961, It is stated that petitioner's learned Advocate regrets the inadvertent omission to separately deal with the said petition and to place the relevant provisions before the Court. In view of the circumstances, a prayer is made that this Court should exercise its inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and recall the order passed in the said matter and pass order in accordance with the provisions of Act 12 of 1974.
(3.)Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing to oppose this petition also regretted the inadvertence in not drawing the attention of the Court to the relevant provision. It appears, therefore, that the order passed by us in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1975 has not taken note of Sec. 2 of the Act 12 of 1974. It seems, therefore, to be an erroneous decision.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.