9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code by the Petitioners. The complaint set out the relevant facts in great detail and made specific allegations to the effect that Petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to defraud him and for that purpose Shri Pawan Kumar, arrayed as accused No. 4 in the complaint, had played an active role apart from fabricating a Board resolution when no such resolution had, in fact, been passed. On receipt of the complaint the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 120B of IPC, took cognizance and directed issuance of process against the accused persons. Aggrieved by the said order, Revision Petitions No. 449, 460, 853 of 2007 were filed by the accused persons before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, challenging the order taking cognizance and the maintainability of the complaint on several grounds. The revision petitions were eventually allowed by the Addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sawhney before the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No. 441 of 2008. The High Court came to the conclusion that the Additional Sessions Judge had fallen in error on all three counts. The High Court noticed that the complaint filed before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court on account of a more comprehensive complaint having been filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. Consequently, on the date the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused persons there was no complaint other than the one pending before the said Court. The complainant could not, therefore, be accused of having suppressed any material information from the trial Court to call for any interference by the Sessions Court on that count. 5. As regards the alleged non-observance of the provisions of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. the High Court came to the conclusion that the provision of Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. had been complied with by the Magistrate while taking cognizance and issuing process. 6. On the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to seek. We say so because the averments made in the complaint when taken at their face value, make out a case against the accused. We have gone through the averments made in the complaint and are of the view that the complaint does contain assertions with sufficient amount of clarity on facts and events which if taken as proved can culminate in an order of conviction against the accused persons. That is, precisely the test to be applied while determining whether the Court taking cognizance and issuing process was justified in doing so. The legal position in this regard is much too well-settled to require any reiteration. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners made a valiant attempt to argue that the Revisional Court was justified in receiving documents from the accused persons at the hearing of the revision and decide the legality of the order taking cognizance on that basis. Before the High Court a similar contention was raised but has been turned down for reasons that are evident from a reading of the passage extracted by us above. We see no error or perversity in the view taken by the High Court that in a revision petition photocopies of documents produced by the accused for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Code of Criminal Procedure; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 10. It is interesting to note that even in the present SLPs the Petitioner has filed an unsigned copy of the alleged minutes of the meeting dated 19th July, 2005. We do not think that we can possibly look into that document without proper proof and without verification of its genuineness. There was and is no clear and unequivocal admission on the record, at least none was brought to our notice, reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mply recognized that taking of cognizance is a serious matter and that the magistrate must apply his mind to the nature of the allegations in the complaint, and the material placed before him while issuing process. The complaint in the present case, as noticed earlier, does make specific allegations which would call for a proper inquiry and trial and the magistrate had indeed recorded a prima facie conclusion to that effect. So also the decision in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) does not help the Petitioner. That was a case where the question was whether at the stage of framing of charge, the accused could seek production of documents to prove his innocence. Answering the question in the negative this Court held: The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, MANU/SC/1580/1996 : (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
