High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Rathinasamy v. Jayalakshmi - Criminal Revision Petition No.318 of 2005  RD-TN 209 (18 March 2005)
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU
Criminal Revision Petition No.318 of 2005
Crl.M.P.No.2209 of 2005
Criminal Revision Petition under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code filed against the dismissal order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Thirupur in Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2005 dated 18.02.200 5 in
C.C.No.295 of 2002.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Damodaran
For Respondent : Nil
This Criminal Revision Petition arises against the order dated 18.02 .2005 in Crl.M.P.No.156 of 2005 in C.C.No.295 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Thiruppur.
2. There was proceedings for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in which the present revision petitioner was the complainant. Respondent / accused wanted to examine an Income Tax Officer with production of such record as witness on her side. The trial court also issued summons and in accordance with the summons, the Officials were also present in court. It is at that time, this revision petitioner / complainant filed an application requesting the Court to withdraw the summons on the ground that income tax records is immune from submitting into Court.
3. Regarding that immunity, the attention of the Court was drawn to the following observation made in the decision reported in M/s.DAGI RAM PINDI LALL ..vs.. TRILOK CHAND JAIN (AIR 1992 SC 990)". "When a Court of law, in any matter pending before it desires the production of record relating to any assessment after applying its judicial mind and hearing the parties and on being prima facie satisfied that the record required to be summoned is relevant for the decision of the controversy before it it passes a judicial order summoning the production of that record from the party having possession of the record. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot, therefore, refuse to send the record, as he certainly is not authorised to set at naught a judicial order of a Court of law. He must obey the order of the Court by sending the record to the Court concerned. Indeed, it is open to the Commissioner of Income-tax to claim privilege, in respect of any document or record so summoned by a Court of law, under Sections 1 23 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and even then it is for the Court to decide whether or not to grant that privilege ....... The finality which has been attached to the order of the Commissioner under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act is, thus restricted to the cases where the information etc., as contemplated by the Section is called for by any person, other than a Court of law by a judicial order. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in holding that the assessment records of an assessee filed before the income-tax authorities, even after April 1, 1964, are immune from production in a Court of law on summons for their production being issued by the Court and that the disclosure of any information from the record even to the Courts is subject to the veto powers of the Commissioner of Income Tax. Section 13 8(1)(b) does not affect the powers of the Courts to require the production of assessment records or the disclosure of any information therefrom to it, in a case pending before the Court when the Court, by a judicial order, requires the production of the records, considered relevant by it for decision of a case pending for it".
4. It is by relying upon such observation of the Supreme Court, the trial Court declined to recall the summons as required by the revision petitioner. I find no error in the order passed by the trial court.
5. Hence, the Criminal revision petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2209 of 2005 is also dismissed. Index: Yes.
The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.