Delhi High Court - Orders
Income Tax Office vs Aims Sanya Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 26 May, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2553/2022
INCOME TAX OFFICE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with Ms.
Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
versus
AIMS SANYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 26.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 10641/2022-EX.
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2553/2022This is a application filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned ACMM (Special Acts), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in Ct. C. No. 54 of 2019 and the order dated 07.12.2021 in Civil Revision 15/2021.
Vide the said order, the learned ACMM has dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.PC, moved by the petitioner/ complainant, wanting to examine one more witness, namely, Smt. Chajat Lowang, the Incumbent Officer Of Charge, Circle-73(1) as misconceived.
The learned ACMM was of the view that the application has been moved after closure of pre-charge complainant evidence and only during cross-examination of the complainant witness, the learned counsel for the accused persons pointed out the infirmities, and by virtue of the present Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:16:38 application, the complainant wants to fill up the lacuna in its pre-charge evidence.
Mr. Rai, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Mujahid, Jr. Standing Counsel argue that, as far as the order of the learned ACMM is concerned, the documents sought to be proved by the witness are public documents which are available on the MCA Portal.
It is further submitted that the documents sought to be proved are relevant and germane to the issue in controversy and clearly show the role of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Directors of respondent No.1 Company. These documents manifest the culpability of the accused persons.
It is submitted that the Courts have the leeway to summon and examine any witness if the evidence is to be essential for just decision of the case. Mr. Rai, learned SC for the petitioner also relies on 'Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotics Cell' [(1999) 6 SCC 110] to urge that even if application under Section 311 Cr.PC amounted to filling up the lacuna in prosecution case, but ignoring of such evidence will lead to miscarriage of justice, the Court is duty-bound to take such evidence on record. All the above legal and factual facets have been ignored by the learned ACMM.
It is further submitted that the Revision Court was of the view that the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 was only an interlocutory order and no revision would lie against the said order.
It is submitted that in case the order of the learned ACMM dated 23.08.2021 is not interfered, the petitioner shall suffer.
Issue notice to the respondents through permissible modes including electronic, returnable on 22.09.2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:16:38CRL.M.A. 10640/2022-STAY This is an application filed seeking ad-interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned ACMM (Special Acts), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi in Ct. C. No. 54 of 2019.
I have been informed that now the matter is listed before learned ACMM on 30.05.2022 for orders.
For the reasons stated above, it is directed that till the next date, the order shall not be pronounced in the Ct. C. No. 54 of 2019.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 26, 2022 / (MS) Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:26.05.2022 17:16:38