Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B IPC against the respondent Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta. The case arose from a complaint by ICICI Bank alleging that M/s R.A. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. had deposited 17 bogus Bills of Entry and fraudulently transferred Rs.104,60,99,082/- through hawala to companies in Dubai and Hong Kong. The FIR was registered against the company and its directors, but the respondent was not named initially. During investigation, statements of witnesses and bank transactions revealed the respondent's involvement, leading to the filing of a second supplementary charge sheet arraigning him as accused. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The respondent filed a revision before the High Court, which condoned a delay of 766 days and set aside the summoning order, holding that there was no material connecting the respondent to the offences. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the order of the Magistrate was an interlocutory order and the High Court could not reappreciate evidence at the stage of summons. The Court further held that under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for his satisfaction; the satisfaction is to be gathered from the charge sheet and documents. The Court found that the second supplementary charge sheet contained sufficient material, including statements of witnesses and bank transactions, to proceed against the respondent. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Magistrate's order of cognizance and issuance of summons.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offence - Section 190(1)(b) CrPC - Sufficient Grounds for Proceeding - The Magistrate is not required to record reasons for his satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused when taking cognizance on a police report. The satisfaction is to be gathered from the charge sheet and accompanying documents. The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons is an interlocutory order and cannot be interfered with in revision unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 13-18) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the Magistrate at the stage of issuance of summons. The revisional court can only interfere if the order is illegal, improper, or perverse. In the present case, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the merits of the evidence and setting aside the summoning order. (Paras 19-24) C) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - Hawala Transactions - In complex economic offences involving hawala transactions, the existence of a conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as bank transactions, call records, and statements of witnesses. The Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance based on the second supplementary charge sheet which contained such material. (Paras 25-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate must record reasons for satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding while taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC; and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the summoning order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 03.05.2017, and restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat dated 15.11.2014 taking cognizance and issuing summons against the respondent.
Law Points
- Cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC does not require recording of reasons for satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence at the stage of summons
- Economic offences involving hawala transactions require a broader view of conspiracy and circumstantial evidence
