Court No. - 56
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1530 of 1993 Revisionist :- Surendra Nath & Ors.
Opposite Party :- Roll Tubes Ltd. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gopal S. Chaturvedi,Bharti Sapru,Sudhir Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Chandra Bhan Gupta,Vijai Bahadur
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist, whereas learned AGA for the State and Sri Anand Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 are present.
Report of the C.J.M., Ghaziabad, dated 18.8.2017 is to the effect that revisionist Surendra Nath, Managing Director, had died on 12.6.2013, hence the criminal proceeding against him stands abated.
Revisionist no. 2, Pankaj Agarwal was personally served with notice but is absent. Revisionist no. 3 is a corporate body, which is not to be prosecuted and punished in its own capacity.
Heard learned AGA and learned counsel for O.P. No. 1.
This revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused revisionists against summoning order dated 28.8.1993 passed by A.C.M.M. III, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 2512 of 1993, M/s Roll Tubes Limited Vs. Surendra Nath and others, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby revisionists were summoned for an offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C., on the ground that a perusal of the complaint reveals no offence against the revisionist. There was a dispute regarding quality of goods purchased by the complainant and prices paid by it. It was a civil dispute. During transaction between parties a sum of Rs. 46,869/- was credited in the Account of the revisionist and thereafter a dispute arose regarding price of damaged goods, which was not accepted by the complainant. The amount alleged to be with the accused-revisionists to the tune of Rs. 36,310/- was not by way of any entrustment but was by way of price of goods sold by the revisionists, hence this revision.
The impugned order reveals that a complaint was filed, which was registered as Case No. 2512 of 1993, M/s Roll Tubes Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath and others, for an offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, by the complainant M/s Roll Tubes Ltd. through its proprietor. Statements under section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. of PW1 Vansh Gopal and PW2 Rahul Verma were recorded. Credit memo dated 8.11.1991, debit memo dated 28.3.1992 and notice in the form of reply dated 8.5.1992 sent by Accounts Manager were taken into consideration. A prima-facie offence u/s 420 I.P.C. was made out against the revisionists, hence cognizance was taken and thus, the accused persons were summoned by the impugned order against which this revision.
At the time of summoning u/s 204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is never expected to pass an elaborate order by appreciation of evidence and by way of analysis of evidence, rather prima-facie existence of cognizable offence on the basis of evidence on record was to be considered at that juncture. In the present case the complainant was examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Vansh Gopal and Rahul Verma were examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of that evidence along with documentary evidence of credit and debit memos a prima-facie offence punishable u/s 420 I.P.C. was made out against the revisionists for which the Magistrate has taken cognizance and thereafter summoning order was passed. The relationship, dealing and transactions between the parties are admitted fact in the memo of revision.
Hence, the impugned order of the Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and the revision merits dismissal.
Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Pcl