criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 199, 4 (h)-complaint by husband- deposition by
husband not a complaint-penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 366, 379, 498-addition of charge-practice.;the accused were in the first instance
charged with offences under sections 366 and 379 of the indian penal code, and were committed to the sessions court for trial on those charges. in the sessions court,
a further charge under section 498 was added. the learned judge agreeing with the assessors acquitted the
accused on charges under sections 366 and 379; but differing from them, he convicted the accused
of the offence under section 498. the accused appealed on the ground
that the conviction under section 498 was bad, as the complaint was not initiated by the husband of the woman:-;that the husband not having complained
of the offence under section 498, the conviction could not be sustained; and that
the statements made by the husband in his deposition could not be said to be complaint
within the meaning of section 4, clause (a) of the criminal procedure code, 1898. - [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 1961 s.132 - search and seizure--order under s. 132(5)--validity of--seized assets handed over the.....1. we must reverse the convictions and sentences in both these cases on the preliminary ground raised before us by mr. shah in support of the appeal that the court below could not take cognizance of the offence under section 498, indian
penal code, because there was no complaint as required by the provisions of
section 199 of the code of criminal procedure. what happened was that the original complaint was made to the police. the police sent up the complaint to the magistrate charging the accused with offences under sections 366 and 379, indian
penal code. the magistrate commenced his inquiry on these charges. there was no charge formulated against the accused under section 498 at the beginning of the inquiry. the first witness examined was the complainant. it may be that certain statements made in the deposition amounted to an offence under section 498, but that was
the statement .of the complainant made as a witness. it could not be said to be a complaint
within the meaning of clause (h/) of section 4 of the
criminal procedure code. the intention of the legislature plainly is (that in a case of adultery committed with a
married woman, it is the husband who is the
aggrieved person, and he must take the initial steps by means of a complaint made to a magistrate before th
e latter can take cognizance of the offence under section 498/ here the complainant had made no complaint to the magistrate as required
by law. on this preliminary ground, therefore, the conviction and sentence must be
set aside, and the accused acquitted and their bail-bonds cancelled.