Skip to content


Balubhai G. Navlakhi and anr. Vs. Dharamdas Vithaldas Shah and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appln. No.705 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Bom538; 1982CriLJ2147
ActsLaw Reports Act, 1875 - Sections 3
AppellantBalubhai G. Navlakhi and anr.
RespondentDharamdas Vithaldas Shah and anr.
Appellant AdvocateJ.C. Rajani and;R.M. Tiwari, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM.A. Rane, Adv.;M.R. Suryawanshi, Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
- [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power, then the proper remedy is to lodge an appeal before the appellate authority. thirdly, even assuming that there is some breach in exercise of power s. 132(5) such breach is not so fatal as to warrant quashing the entire order. income tax act..........in my court. as the prefect of this volume shows, the publication of this journal, namely, bombay cases reporter, was originally published under the caption 'unreported cases reporter (bombay)'. under the practice of this court, copies of judgments of this court which are marked by the judges to be referred to the law reporters are given to the bombay law reporter and the maharashtra law journal. the all india reporter obtains certified copies of the judgments of this court and thereafter publishes the judgments in its journal. there is nothing in this journal called bombay cases reporter to indicate on what basis this journal has obtained the copies of the judgments of t he court. there is no guarantee that what has been reported in this journal is authenitic. it is not indicated by.....
Judgment:

1. To 7. * * *

8. In support of his contention that even at this stage the complaint can be dismissed and the process issued by the learned trial magistrate can be quashed, Mr.Rajani sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Bomanji v.Mehernosh 1980 Bom CR 503. Before Mr.Rajani proceeded to read this judgment, I stopped him because it is my consistent practice not to allow this journal to be cited in my court. As the prefect of this volume shows, the publication of this journal, namely, Bombay cases Reporter, was originally published under the caption 'Unreported cases Reporter (Bombay)'. Under the practice of this court, copies of judgments of this court which are marked by the judges to be referred to the law reporters are given to the Bombay Law Reporter and the maharashtra Law Journal. The All India Reporter obtains certified copies of the judgments of this court and thereafter publishes the judgments in its journal. There is nothing in this journal called Bombay cases Reporter to indicate on what basis this journal has obtained the copies of the judgments of t he court. There is no guarantee that what has been reported in this journal is authenitic. It is not indicated by the publishers of this journal or the editor that the copies of the judgments on the basis of which they are reported in this journal are certified copies of the judgments. I have often seen grave grammatical and other mistakes appearing in the pages of this journal. I have, therefore, regarded it as hazardous to rely upon this journal and, therefore, it is my consistent practice not to allow this journal to be cited in my court. This is apart from the question involved under the Indian Law Reports Act, 1875.

9 to 12 * * * * *

13. petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //