In Sb Cr Misc Petition v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors
High Court
15 Jan 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
In Sb Cr Misc Petition v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors
Date of order
15 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In In Sb Cr Misc Petition v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Cr Misc Application No. 967/2009
inSB Cr Misc Petition No.2376/2006Dy Director, Income Tax (Investigation)-II, Jaipur versusState of Rajasthan & ors
15.1.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Kushagra SharmaMr Anuroop Singhi – for petitioner/s
Mr Sudesh Saini, PP – for the State Mr Pradeep Choudhary – for respondent No.2 Mr Ganesh Sharma – for respondent No.3
BY THE COURT:
This criminal misc. application has been filed forrecalling the order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Cr Misc PetitionNo.2376/2006.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that prior tomisc petition, the order was not challenged by them in a writpetition though respondent No.2 – Satya Narain Maheshwari hadfiled a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitutionof India. The writ petition of Satya Narain was not accepted but a
liberty was given to file a fresh application for release of themoney on “Supurdaginama” at the appropriate stage. Taking theaforesaid writ petition to be at the instance of the presentpetitioner, criminal misc. petition was dismissed finding it to benot maintainable though no writ petition was filed by them.
I have considered the submission and perused theorder in question.
I find an apparent error on the face of record as thedismissal of the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 was a bar tomaintain criminal misc. petition by Satya Narain who had earlierpreferred a writ petition but it could not have been against thepresent petitioner i.e. Dy Director, Income Tax Department. Itseems that two petitions were heard and decided by a commonorder without making difference in two petitions.
In view of above, criminal misc application isaccepted. The order dated 11.12.2008 passed in SB Cr MiscPetition No. 2376/2006 is recalled and petition is revived with theaforesaid.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have beenincorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma)PS-cum-JW
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.