Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Criminal Revision Application filed by the original complainant, Rajeev Sawhney, challenging an order dated 13.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The Sessions Judge had allowed Revision Applications filed by the accused persons (respondents) and set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai dated 18.1.2007, by which process was issued against all accused for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused, including the State Bank of Mauritius Ltd., its manager Ravi Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd., and its directors, induced him to invest in the company by fraudulent misrepresentations and forged documents, causing him loss. The Magistrate found a prima facie case and issued process. The Sessions Court, in revision, set aside that order, holding that the allegations did not disclose the offences. The High Court, in the present revision, examined whether the Sessions Court was justified in interfering with the order of issuance of process. The High Court held that the revisional court's scope is limited to examining whether a prima facie case exists and cannot conduct a mini-trial. The High Court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied his mind and there were sufficient grounds to proceed. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order issuing process. The High Court directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope of Interference - Order Issuing Process - The Sessions Court in revision against issuance of process can only examine whether there is a prima facie case and cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate evidence - Held that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by scrutinizing the evidence in detail and setting aside the process (Paras 1-3).
B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403, 120B - Prima Facie Case - The complaint alleged that the accused induced the complainant to invest in a company by fraudulent misrepresentations and forged documents - Held that the Magistrate was justified in issuing process as there were sufficient grounds to proceed (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused persons for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with 120B of IPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 13.8.2008, and restored the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18.1.2007 issuing process against the accused. The trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Law Points
- Issuance of process
- prima facie case
- scope of revision against process
- Sections 420
- 465
- 467
- 471
- 403
- 120B IPC
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- forgery
- conspiracy
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (05) 10
Criminal Revision Application No. 441 of 2008
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. Rahul Moghe, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sanjog S. Parab, Advocate for the respondent Bankers (orig. accused Nos. 1 to 3). Mr. Ashok K. Wanwar, Advocate i/b. Smt. Rita S. Panjwani, Advocates, for respondent No.3. Mr. K.G. Menon, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr. J.L. Phoujdar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6. Smt. M.R. Tideke, APP, for the respondent No.7 - State.
State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of the Sessions Court setting aside the Magistrate's order issuing process against the accused.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (original complainant) sought to set aside the Sessions Court order and restore the Magistrate's order issuing process against the accused.
Filing Reason
The complainant alleged that the accused induced him to invest in a company by fraudulent misrepresentations and forged documents, causing him loss.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the accused on 18.1.2007. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision applications of the accused and set aside the order of issuance of process on 13.8.2008.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's order issuing process for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with 120B IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and appreciating evidence at the stage of issuance of process.
The respondents argued that the allegations did not disclose any offence and the Magistrate had not applied his mind properly.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court, while examining an order issuing process, can only see whether a prima facie case is made out and cannot appreciate evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The Magistrate had applied his mind and found sufficient grounds to proceed, and the Sessions Court erred in interfering with that order.
Judgment Excerpts
The Revision Application is filed by the original complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 13.8.2008 whereby he allowed the Revision Application Nos.449 of 2007, 460 of 2007 and 853 of 2007 filed by the different accused persons/respondents and whereby he set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 18.1.2007 of issuance of process against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with Sec. 120B of IPC.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who issued process on 18.1.2007. The accused filed revision applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the order on 13.8.2008. The complainant then filed the present Criminal Revision Application before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 465, 467, 471, 403, 120B
