BABITA LILA & ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2016-8-55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 31,2016

Babita Lila And Another Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE VS. SHRI SHYAM WAREHOUSING [LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
APURVA GHIY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2020-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LTD. (FORMERLY CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.)] VS. U.P. POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIDHI KARTI CHIDAMBARAM VS. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY) [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN TAMRAKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMA RAZU PRASAD VS. STATE, REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACU-II [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR PATEL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOPAL SAHU S/O GANPAT RAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
KARTI P.CHIDAMBARAM VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-428] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SONI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
BASKAR MENDON VS. SADASHIV NARAYAN SHETTY & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH RATHORE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. RIKKI SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2020-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, VILLAGE VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH S/O SHRI MURARI LAL VS. DINESH SINGH S/O KARAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU SHARMA ALIAS PRAVEEN SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-12-138] [REFERRED TO]
SWAATI NIRKHI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-107] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted
(2.)Being aggrieved by the rejection of their challenge to the initiation of their prosecution under Sections 109/191/193/196/200/420/120B/34 IPC on the basis of a complaint made by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal (M.P.), both on the ground of lack of competence of the complainant and of jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Bhopal, the appellants seek the remedial intervention of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
(3.)The appellants, who are husband and wife, are residents of both Bhopal and Aurangabad. A search operation was conducted by the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 28.10.2010 at both the residences of the appellants, in course whereof their statements were recorded on oath under Section 131 of the Act. On a query made by the authorities, it is alleged that they made false statements denying of having any locker either in individual names or jointly in any bank. It later transpired that they did have a safe deposit locker with the Axis Bank (formerly known as UTI Bank) at Aurangabad which they had also operated on 30.10.2010. The search at Aurangabad was conducted by the Income Tax Officer, Nashik and Income Tax Officer, Dhule and the statements of the appellants were also recorded at Aurangabad.
;


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