Adalat prasad vs rooplal jindal & ors on 25 august, 2004

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004 N. Santosh Hegde, S.B. Sinha & A.K. Mathur This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal RevisionNo.127 of 1995 whereby the High Court allowed the said revision petition, setting aside the order of the trialcourt dated 28.1.1995 and remanded the matter to the Court of Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows : The 1st respondent herein filed a complaint under sections 120A, 120B, 405, 406, 415, 420, 463, 465 and 468of the IPC against the appellant and other respondents herein alleging that the respondents have cheated anddefrauded him. Taking cognizance of the said complaint on 26.5.1992 the learned Metropolitan Magistratesummoned the appellants herein and other accused by issuing process under section 204 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure (the Code) for offences confined to section 420 read with 120B IPC.
Being aggrieved by the said order of issuance of process the appellant and some of the accused moved theHigh Court and the High Court in the said petition directed the petitioners therein to move the trial courtagainst the order of summoning. Pursuant to the said order of the High Court the appellant herein filed anapplication purported to be under section 203 Cr.P.C. on 10.3.1993 and the learned trial Judge by his orderdated 28.1.1995 after hearing the parties recalled the said summons.
The said order of the learned Magistrate recalling the summons originally issued by him was challengedbefore the High Court on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall a summons issued undersection 204 of the Code. The High Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision petition holding thatwhile the trial court was justified in taking cognizance of the offences punishable under section 420 read with120B IPC it erred in recalling the consequential summons issued because the said court did not have thepower to review its own order.
It is against the said order of the High Court as stated above, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
Indian Kanoon - Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004 When this appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 13.11.2002 learned counsel appearing for the appellantwherein it was held that it was open to the court issuing summons to recall the same on being satisfied that theissuance of summons was not in accordance with law. The court which heard this matter at the preliminary(supra) got settled out of court hence the issue involved in Mathew's case (supra) was not decided by thelarger Bench. Therefore on 3.12.2002 this Court directed that the present appeal be placed before a 3-JudgeBench with a view to consider the correctness of the law laid down by this Court in Mathew's case (supra). Itis in this background this appeal has now come up for our consideration.
As noticed above it is the correctness of the view expressed by this Court in Mathew's case which is now to beconsidered by us.
It was held in Mathew's case (supra) that section 204 of the Code indicates that the proceedings before theMagistrate commences upon taking cognizance and issue of summons to the accused. When the accusedenters appearance in response to the summons the Magistrate has to take proceedings under Chapter XX ofthe Code. It was further held that the need to try the accused arises only when there is an allegation in thecomplaint that the accused has committed the crime. Hence, if there is no allegation in the complaintinvolving the accused in the commission of the crime it is implied that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction toproceed against the accused. In that background this Court held that it is open to the accused served withsummons to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued and if theMagistrate is satisfied with such an argument, he may drop the proceedings on reconsideration of thecomplaint on the ground that there was no offence for which accused could be tried. This Court furtherobserved in Mathew's case, such power is Magistrate's judicial discretion and no specific provision is requiredfor the Magistrate to drop proceedings or rescind the process. It also held that the order of issuing processbeing an interim order and not a judgment, it can be varied or recalled. The Court also held that the fact thatthe process has been already issued is no bar to drop the proceedings, if the complaint on the very face of itdoes not disclose any offence against the accused.
It is thus seen that in Mathew's case (supra) this Court held that after issuance of summons under section 204of the Code, it was open to the Magistrate on being satisfied at the instance of the summoned accused toreconsider its decision of issuing summons under section 204. This Court in that case also held that theMagistrate issuing the summons can do so only on there being material to issue summons hence summonserroneously issued can be recalled by the Magistrate for which no specific provision is required.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the judgment of this Court in the caseof Mathew (supra) we are unable to agree with the law laid down by this Court in the said case.
If we analyse the reasons given by this Court in the said case of Mathew then we notice that the said view isbased on the following facts : (a) The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to issue process arises only if the complaint contains the allegationsinvolving the commission of a crime; (b) If the process is issued without there being an allegation in the complaint involving the accused in thecommission of a crime it is open to the summoned accused to approach the court issuing summons andconvince the court that there is no such allegation in the complaint which requires his summoning; (c) For so recalling the order of summons no specific provision of law is required; (d) The order of issuing process is an interim order and not a judgment hence it can be varied or recalled.
Indian Kanoon - Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004 We will examine the above findings of this Court in the background of the scheme of the Code whichprovides for consideration of complaints by Magistrates and commencement of proceedings before theMagistrate which is found in Chapters XV and XVI of the Code; Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine thecomplaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any. If on such examination ofthe complaint and the witnesses, if any, the Magistrate if he does not want to postpone the issuance of processhas to dismiss the complaint under section 203 if he comes to the conclusion that the complaint, the statementof the complainant and the witnesses has not made out sufficient ground for proceeding. Per contra if he issatisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the complaint, the evidence adduced at that stage hasmaterials to proceed, he can proceed to issue process under Section 204 of the Code Section 202 contemplates: postponement of issue of process : It provides that if the Magistrate on receipt of acomplaint if he thinks fit, to postpone the issuance of process against the accused and desires further inquiryinto the case either by himself or directs an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such otherperson as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, hemay do so. In that process if he thinks it fit he may even take evidence of witnesses on oath, and after suchinvestigation, inquiry and the report of the Police if sought for by the Magistrate and if he finds no sufficientground for proceeding he can dismiss the complaint by recording briefly the reasons for doing so ascontemplated under section 203 of the Code.
But after taking cognizance of the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses if he issatisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint he can issue process by way of summonsunder section 204 of the Code. Therefore what is necessary or a condition precedent for issuing process undersection 204 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate either by examination of the complainant and the witnesses orby the inquiry contemplated under section 202 that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with thecomplaint hence issue the process under section 204 of the Code. In none of these stages the Code hasprovided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons because this is only a preliminary stage andthe stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provisionin the Code. It is true as held by this Court in Mathew's case before issuance of summons the Magistrateshould be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint but that satisfaction is tobe arrived at by the inquiry conducted by him as contemplated under sections 200 and 202, and the only stageof dismissal of the complaint arises under section 203 of the Code at which stage the accused has no role toplay therefore the question of the accused on receipt of summons approaching the court and making anapplication for dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of the Code for a reconsideration of the materialavailable on record is impermissible because by then Section 203 is already over and the Magistrate hasproceeded further to Section 204 stage.
It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegationagainst the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provision of Sections 200 &202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at thatstage is not by invoking section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate areview of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminalcourts, the remedy lies in invoking Section 482 of Code.
Therefore, in our opinion the observation of this Court in the case of Mathew (supra) that for recalling anorder of issuance of process erroneously, no specific provision of law is required would run counter to theScheme of the Code which has not provided for review and prohibits interference at inter-locutory stages.
Therefore, we are of the opinion, that the view of this Court in Mathew's case (supra) that no specificprovision is required for recalling an erroneous order, amounting to one without jurisdiction, does not laydown the correct law.
Indian Kanoon - Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004 In view of our above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether order issuing aprocess amounts to an interim order or not.
For the reasons stated above we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court impugned herein. Thisappeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Indian Kanoon -


Hoffer hit-2a digital flow rate indicator and totalizer specification datasheet

TURBINE FLOWMETERS BY Rate Indicator & Totalizer HOFFER Perfecting Measurement TM TECHNICAL DATA SHEET OUTSTANDING FEATURES ♦ 5 Digit Rate Display, 8 Digit Totalizer Display. ♦ Local Magnetic or Remote Reset. ♦ 4-20mA Analog Output. ♦ Powered From Battery, DC Supply, 4-20mA Output ♦ 20 Pt. Linearization Option. ♦ Isolated Scaled Pulse Output. �

Copyright © 2010 Health Drug Pdf