AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question which these criminal revision petitions raises is as to the admissibility of certain statements made by the complainant in an Income
tax return. The case is in the stage of a preliminary enquiry, and if committed will eventually be heard by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances
it has been urged upon us by the complainant that we should not interfere with the occur of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate admitting the
evidence. We believe it to be very unusual for this Court to hold up a preliminary enquiry while it adjudicates upon an order of this kind. Indeed,
only one reported case, a recent one decided by Burn, J., in In Re: Ponnusami Chetty, has been brought to our notice in which a question of the
admissibility of evidence at this stage has been entertained, and it does not appear that any objection, such as is raised now, was preferred. We are
influenced by the consideration that if the case is committed for trial, it will rest upon the trial Court independently to decide upon the admissibility
of this evidence, and it seems undesirable that, by a decision at this stage, we should in any way interfere with that Court''s discretion. If the case is
not committed, our intervention will have been unnecessary. Mr. S. Sreenivasa Ayyangar objects that this petition has passed the admission stage,
when it was open to the Court to throw it out on these grounds. We do not think that our hands are thereby tied, as on the previous hearing, there
was no occasion for the objection to be raised.
For these reasons, we decline at this stage to interfere with the decision to admit the evidence and dismiss these petitions.