Selvi J.jayalalithaa v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii (5), Chennai β 600 034
High Court
20 Jul 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· hc_cis_mas
Parties
Selvi J.jayalalithaa v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii (5), Chennai β 600 034
Date of order
20 Jul 2018
Assessment year(s)
β
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Selvi J.jayalalithaa v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii (5), Chennai β 600 034, the High Court (2018) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 8.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed asinfructuous.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order β as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 13.07.2018Pronounced on : 20.07.2018CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.24478 of 2004andCrl.M.P.No.7974 of 2004
Selvi J.Jayalalithaa... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II (5), Chennai β 600 034.... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the recordspertaining to E.O.C.C.No.161 of 1996 pending trial on the fileof the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court [EconomicOffences-I], Egmore, Chennai, so as to quash the same.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.VenkateshFor Respondent: Mr.Murali Krishnan, Special Public Prosecutor
(Income Tax Cases)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for therecords pertaining to E.O.C.C.No.161 of 1996 pending trial onthe file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court[Economic Offences-I], Egmore, Chennai, so as to quash the same.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner and the SpecialPublic Prosecutor appearing for the Income Tax Departmentappeared.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memostating that by order dated 08.01.2015, the Trial Court had
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
allowed the respondent/complainant to withdraw the complaint.In pursuant to the above the complaint was withdrawn and nothingsurvives for adjudication.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for thepetitioner had filed an order passed by the Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate [Economic Offences-I], Egmore, Chennai,made in E.O.C.C.No.161 of 1996 dated 08.01.2015.
5.On a perusal of the same, it is seen that the learnedSpecial Publlic Prosecutor of the Income Tax Department hadfiled a petition in Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2015 to withdraw theprosecution against the petitioner and given a consent towithdraw the prosecution.
6.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for theIncome Tax Department had filed a communication dated 27.02.2015of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial and Prosecution),Chennai addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,Chennai, concurring the same.
7.Recording the submission, the Lower Court had ordered thatE.O.C.C.No.161 of 1996 is ordered to be withdrawn. In view ofthe above, the prayer in this Criminal Original Petition becomesinfructuous.
8.Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed asinfructuous. Consequently, the connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [Economic Offences-I], Egmore, Chennai
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II (5), Chennai β 600 034.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.L.Muralikrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.48580
+1cc to Mr.S.Venkatesh, Advocate, S.R.No.48899
Crl.O.P.No.24478 of 2004
GMR(CO)GSP(02/08/2018)
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 β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient 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.