Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the appellant-accused against the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court, which set aside the Judicial Magistrate's order summoning respondent No. 2 as an accused in a case of embezzlement. The FIR was lodged in 1986, alleging that the appellant, a Clerk, forged the signature of the Head Master and embezzled funds. The appellant filed applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to add respondent No. 2 as an accused based on evidence that emerged during the trial. The Judicial Magistrate initially allowed the applications, but the Additional Sessions Judge later set aside this order, leading to the appellant's appeal. The Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to summon respondent No. 2 and that the revisional court's interference was unwarranted. The court reiterated that an order summoning an accused cannot be recalled and emphasized the importance of the evidence presented. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Magistrate's order to summon respondent No. 2.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Power to Summon Additional Accused - Judicial Magistrate's Authority - Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Magistrate had the authority to summon an additional accused if evidence indicated their involvement in the offence. The court held that the applications filed by the appellant under Section 319 were maintainable and the order to summon respondent No. 2 was lawful (Paras 18-24). B) Criminal Procedure - Recall of Orders - Jurisdiction of Courts - Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - An order passed by a competent court issuing summons cannot be recalled. The court emphasized that the revisional court erred in holding that the Magistrate could recall the order, which was supported by evidence (Paras 51-64).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate had the power to summon respondent No. 2 as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the revisional court could recall such an order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the order of the Judicial Magistrate summoning respondent No. 2 as an accused. The court held that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to issue the summons and that the revisional court erred in recalling the order.
Law Points
- Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- recall of orders
- jurisdiction of Magistrate
- powers of revisional courts
- necessity of sanction under Section 197
