2019 (2) TMI 1936 - SC - Indian Laws

Hawala Transactions - complex economic offence of sending foreign exchange abroad to foreign companies in Dubai and Hongkong through hawala - Maintainability of revision petition against order of issue of process - necessity of recording reasons for its satisfaction of sufficient grounds for issuance of summons - cognizance of an offence Under Section 190(1) (b) Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is well-settled that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and the Magistrate is only to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Accused. It is fairly well-settled that when issuing summons, the Magistrate need not explicitly state the reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Accused. Under Section 190 (1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process - In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the Accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the charge sheet is barred by law or where there is lack of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the charge sheet and for not taking on file. In the present case, cognizance of the offence has been taken by taking into consideration the charge sheet filed by the police for the offence Under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B Indian Penal Code, the order for issuance of process without explicitly recording reasons for its satisfaction for issue of process does not suffer from any illegality. Whether revision Under Section 397(2) Code of Criminal Procedure against order of issue of process is maintainable? - HELD THAT - While hearing revision Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court and will not reappreciate the evidence unless the judgment of the lower court suffers from perversity. Based on the charge sheet and the materials produced thereon when the Magistrate satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, the learned Single Judge was not justified in examining the merits and demerits of the case and substitute its own view. When the satisfaction of the Magistrate was based on the charge sheet and the materials placed before him, the satisfaction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and the satisfaction ought not to have been interfered with - while taking cognizance of an offence based upon a police report, it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the Accused. When the prosecution relies upon the materials, strict standard of proof is not to be applied at the stage of issuance of summons nor to examine the probable defence which the Accused may take. All that the court is required to do is to satisfy itself as to whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The learned Single Judge committed a serious error in going into the merits and demerits of the case and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mandatory recording of reasons by the court for satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
2. Validity of the High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the Magistrate's order issuing summons.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandatory Recording of Reasons:
The court examined whether it is mandatory for the Magistrate to record reasons for its satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused when taking cognizance of an offense based on a police report under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC. The court noted that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and is to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It was emphasized that detailed reasons need not be explicitly stated for issuing summons as per Section 204 CrPC. The court relied on precedents such as Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, concluding that the Magistrate's satisfaction based on the police report and materials filed along with it is sufficient for issuing summons without explicitly recording reasons.

2. Validity of High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction:
The court evaluated whether the High Court was right in setting aside the Magistrate's order issuing summons to the accused in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC. The court referred to precedents like Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, which held that an order directing issuance of process is not purely interlocutory but intermediate or quasi-final in nature, thus revisional jurisdiction can be exercised against such orders. The court concluded that the High Court's interference with the Magistrate's satisfaction, based on the charge sheet and materials provided, was erroneous. The High Court was found to have improperly reappreciated the evidence and substituted its own view, which is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restoring the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the second supplementary charge sheet and issuing summons to the accused. The court emphasized that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate need not record detailed reasons, and the High Court should not have interfered with the Magistrate's satisfaction based on the materials provided. The accused was directed to appear before the trial court, and the trial court was instructed to proceed in accordance with the law.