Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Sec. 276, 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Offences & Prosecution—Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory.
Facts: Criminal complaints and prayers pertaining to quash / assailing transfer of same is the central theme of instant four criminal original petitions on hand.
Held, that nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate courts. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226 and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution.’ Court deems it appropriate to make a parting observation that 4th and 3rd respondents in first and second Crl.O.Ps will do well to designate one or more Metropolitan Magistrate/s in Chennai for trying criminal cases related to elected M.Ps/M.L.As, in accordance with the directives of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case which is the basis for this entire matter. Though obvious, it is made clear that this order will be an impetus to 4th and 3rd respondents for an exercise in this direction.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. - SRINIDHI KARTI CHIDAMBARAM V/s DEPUTY CIT -  424 ITR 030 (MAD)