S.suresh Babu v. The Income Tax Officer,Non-Corporate Ward-10(4),Room
High Court
30 Aug 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
S.suresh Babu v. The Income Tax Officer,Non-Corporate Ward-10(4),Room
Date of order
30 Aug 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In S.suresh Babu v. The Income Tax Officer,Non-Corporate Ward-10(4),Room, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in EOC.No.621 of 2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Crl.O.P.No.27993 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P No.27993 of 2022and
Crl.M.P.Nos.17193 & 17196 of 2022
S.Suresh Babu
vs.
...Petitioners
The Income Tax Officer,Non-Corporate Ward-10(4),Room No.616, 6[th] Floor,Wanapathy Block,No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai 600 034.
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to EOC.No.621 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioner: Mr.R.Murali
For Respondent: Mr.L.Muralikrishnan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to EOC.No.621 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.
2. The grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioner are all factual in nature and it requires appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Court below and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall appear before the Court below as and when required by the Court below and during all the other times, he shall be permitted to be represented by the counsel. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of Page No.2/4
Crl.O.P.No.27993 of 2022
questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of final judgement.
4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in EOC.No.621 of 2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab [2015 (1) MLJ (Crl) 288 SC].If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand him to custody as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH (JT 2001 (4) SC 3191). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
30.08.2023
Index: Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking Ordernsa
Crl.O.P.No.27993 of 2022
To
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. nsa
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai
2. The Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward-10(4), Room No.616, 6[th] Floor,
Wanapathy Block,
No.121, Nungambakkam High Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
Crl.O.P No.27993 of 2022and Crl.M.P.Nos.17193 & 17196 of 2022
30.08.2023
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.