MAHESHWARI PRASAD MISHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned orders were per se illegal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to verify whether the notices or warrants (bailable or arrest) had been served upon the petitioner. Furthermore, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued without recording the necessary satisfaction, as required by Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., that the petitioner was intentionally concealing himself or had absconded. The court reasoned that issuing such orders without due procedural adherence renders them unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 16.02.2024 and 29.02.2024 were set aside. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 25.04.2024, the date already fixed. Until then, in case of arrest, the petitioner was to be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Maheshwari Prasad Mishra, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash orders dated 16.02.2024 and 29.02.2024. These orders, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, involved the issuance of arrest warrants and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively, in a complaint case initiated by the Income Tax Officer. The original summoning order was passed on 16.11.2018, requiring the petitioner to face trial under Sections 276-C(1), 276-C(2), and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Procedural history indicates a series of unserved bailable warrants and subsequently, arrest warrants, culminating in the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without apparent verification of service or satisfaction of the statutory requirements.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order dated 16.02.2024, issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner, is legally sustainable, considering the procedural history of unserved bailable warrants and the absence of proper service or satisfaction of conditions for issuing arrest warrants under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (mixed question of law and fact, relating to procedural compliance under Cr.P.C.). 2. Whether the order dated 29.02.2024, issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., is legally sustainable, given the alleged failure of the Magistrate to record satisfaction regarding the petitioner intentionally concealing himself or absconding, as mandated by Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. (question of law). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were per se illegal. The Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to ascertain whether notices, bailable warrants, or arrest warrants had been served upon the petitioner. Consequently, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued without the required satisfaction under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. regarding the petitioner's intentional concealment or absconding. Revenue's Contention: No specific contentions were recorded for the respondent (Income Tax Officer) in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 82,Section 276-C(1),Section 276-C(2),Section 277
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
of this document/order
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:038895 CRM-M-12729-2024 directed to be issued for 29.02.2024. The order dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) would reveal that without noticing as to whether the warrants of arrest had been received back or not and if received back what was the report, the Court directed to issue the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 25.04.2024. 3. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders are per se illegal. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot did not bother to see as to whether the notice or the bailable warrants or warrants of arrest had ever been served upon the petitioner- accused or not and straightway, preferred to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without even recording any satisfaction, as required under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. as to whether the petitioner was concealing himself intentionally or had absconded.
As such, without issuing any notice to the respondent, lest it may delay the proceedings before the Trial Court concerned, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The petitioner is hereby directed to surrender before the Trial Court concerned on or before 25.04.2024, the date already fixed thereat. Till then, in case petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be admitted to the interim bail to the satisfaction of arresting officer. Disposed of. March 19, 2024
(DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita
JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2024.03.19 05:19 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
More judgments on Section 277
- Murtuza Hasanali Netterwala, Mumbai vs Incom Tax Officer, CPC, BengaluruITA 6341/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed29 Dec 2025AY 2024-25
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central… vs Ab Alcobev Private Limited, DelhiITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
- ACIT, Circle-3, Mirzapur vs M/S N Chaurasia Associates, Sonebhadra…ITA 41/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15
- M/S N Chaurasia Associates, Sonebhadra vs ACIT, MirzapurITA 29/ALLD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15
- Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2)…ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: Disposed31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Jashim Uddin vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OrsGauhati · 1 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
