KN SUBRAMANIAN VS INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER

The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tax
Recovery officer II, Sadar, Nagpur Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 658 cannot be applied to the facts of thepresent case. Further, Tax Recovery officer is not required to declare the sale between the petitioner and the fourth respondent as invalid as the sale is void abinito. The petitioner has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute.

The State v Muneeswaran and Others

The Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrates to not accept the voluntary surrender petitions of accused persons when the Magistrate court does not have jurisdiction to try the case. The court made it clear that as per Section 167 of CrPC an accused had to be “forwarded” to the Magistrate by the police and only then the court could entertain a surrender petition filed by the accused.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that remand report and case diary are jurisdictional conditions for authorising detention under Section 167(2) as it allows the Magistrate to apply his mind anad effectively determine whether a case for remand is made out. Thus, in the court’s opinion, when an accused voluntarily surrenders, the remand, based on only the FIR copy is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction