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 inquiry, 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 Order 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 Ponnusami Chetty, In re I.L.R.(1933) 56 Mad. 475 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. Srinivasa Aiyangar 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 the Petitions.