# Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 656
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/parmeshwar-srivastava-pappi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49386
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Revision
-
The
Negotiable
instruments
Act,
1981
-
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account,
Section 141 - Offences by companies - for
maintaining the prosecution under Section
141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as
an
accused
is
imperative
-
liability
under Section 138 of the NI Act - Section
itself makes the drawer liable and no
other person - An action in respect of a
criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has
to be strictly construed in keeping with
the provisions alleged to have been
violated - proceedings in such matters are
in personam and cannot be used to foist
an offence on some other person, who
11 All. Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
657
under the statute was not liable for the
commission of such offence.(Para -10, 13)

Complaint filed in respect of dishonor of six
cheques - drawn by accused in favour of
complainant - grounds - false, concocted and
baseless facts and is not maintainable in the eye
of law - legal formalities complete under N.I. Act
- accused summoned by court on finding
sufficient evidence against him - evidence to be
recorded during trial - discharge application
moved by revisionist/accused - dismissed by
C.J.M. - case was fixed for recording statement
of the accused.(Para - 2, 5, 6)

HELD:-Court below addressed issues raised by
the accused in discharge application in proper
manner
while
dismissing
the
discharge
application moved by revisionist by a reasoned
order. The cheques , signed by a revisionist in
his private capacity, not as an authorized
signatory of the company, and the payee is an
individual. Complaint against the revisionist for
the charge under Section 138 N.I. Act is
maintainable and not legally barred for nonarrangement of the company as an accused.
Impugned order not vitiated by any illegality,
irregularity.
(Para -15, 16, 17)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

## Text

656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

71. If the act alleged in a
complaint purported to be filed against the
policeman is reasonably connected to
discharge of some official duty, cognizance
thereof cannot be taken unless requisite
sanction of the appropriate Government is
obtained under Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and/or Section 170 of
the Karnataka Police Act."

18. It is also well settled that an
application under Section 482 CrPC is
maintainable to quash the proceedings for
want of sanction or if same are frivolous or
in abuse of process of the Court. If there is
no
reasonable
relationship
with
the
official/public duty the protection under
Section 197 CrPC will not be available to
such a public servant. However, for the
alleged offence committed by the police
personnel, which may be in excess of his
official/public duty, without sanction the
Court is barred to take cognizance of the
offence.

19. In the present case, it is not in
dispute that the applicants, along with other
police personnel were complying the order
of the court below, as such, it cannot be
said that the police officers were not acting
in discharge of their official duty. Even if
the police official had exceeded to some
extent their authority in discharge of their
official/public duty, then also sanction
would be required for their prosecution. In
absence
of
sanction,
the
criminal
proceedings against the applicants would
be non-est and void and the same are liable
to be quashed.

20. In view thereof, the application is
hereby
allowed.
Consequently,
the
impugned proceedings of Complaint Case
No.2803
of
2018
(Lalchand
Vs.
Vishwanath Singh Rathour and others),
under Sections 323, 342, 379, 504 and 506
IPC,
Police
Station-Bhelpur,
DistrictVaranasi against the applicants are, hereby,
quashed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 656
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2023
With
Application U/S 482. No.5071 of 2023

Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Sri Amit
Kumar Srivasatva, Sri Rishab Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajendra Singh, Sri Shiv Bahadur
Singh

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Revision
-
The
Negotiable
instruments
Act,
1981
-
Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for
insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account,
Section 141 - Offences by companies - for
maintaining the prosecution under Section
141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as
an
accused
is
imperative
-
liability
under Section 138 of the NI Act - Section
itself makes the drawer liable and no
other person - An action in respect of a
criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has
to be strictly construed in keeping with
the provisions alleged to have been
violated - proceedings in such matters are
in personam and cannot be used to foist
an offence on some other person, who
11 All. Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
657
under the statute was not liable for the
commission of such offence.(Para -10, 13)

Complaint filed in respect of dishonor of six
cheques - drawn by accused in favour of
complainant - grounds - false, concocted and
baseless facts and is not maintainable in the eye
of law - legal formalities complete under N.I. Act
- accused summoned by court on finding
sufficient evidence against him - evidence to be
recorded during trial - discharge application
moved by revisionist/accused - dismissed by
C.J.M. - case was fixed for recording statement
of the accused.(Para - 2, 5, 6)

HELD:-Court below addressed issues raised by
the accused in discharge application in proper
manner
while
dismissing
the
discharge
application moved by revisionist by a reasoned
order. The cheques , signed by a revisionist in
his private capacity, not as an authorized
signatory of the company, and the payee is an
individual. Complaint against the revisionist for
the charge under Section 138 N.I. Act is
maintainable and not legally barred for nonarrangement of the company as an accused.
Impugned order not vitiated by any illegality,
irregularity.
(Para -15, 16, 17)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. Aneeta Hada Vs Godfather Travels & Tour Pvt. Ltd.,
2012 LawSuit (SC) 244

2. Sheoratan Aggarwal & anr. Vs St. of M.P., 1984 4 SCC
352

3. St. of Madras Vs C.V. Parekh & anr., 1970 3 SCC 491

4. Himanshu Vs B. Shivamurthy & anr., Crl. Appeal No.
1465 of 2009

5. Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs Vijay D. Salvi, Crl.
Appeal No. 1472 of 2009

6. P. Rasiya Vs Abdul Nazeer & anr., Crl. Appeal Nos.
1233-35 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prakash Chandra
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist/applicant, learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for
the State and perused the material placed
on record.

2. Instant criminal revision has been
preferred against judgment and order dated
9.1.2023
passed
by
learned
C.J.M.
Varanasi in Complaint Case No. 9647 of
2021, under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S.
Rohaniya,
District
Varanasi,
whereby
discharge
application
moved
by
revisionist/accused has been dismissed and
the case was fixed for recording statement
of the accused.

3. Factual matrix of the case in brief
is that complainant who is respondent no. 2
in present revision filed a complaint before
the court of Special C.J.M., Varanasi, under
Section 138 N.I. Act which is registered as
criminal case no. 9647 of 2021 wherein he
has stated that complainant is having huge
chunk of plots in Mauza Badi Khajuri
Varanasi.
The
accused
Parmeshwar
Srivastava came into conact with him and
posed himself as Director/Office bearer of
Shine City Infra Project Limited and stated
that he was purchasing plots for said
Company and also promised to pay
dividends by borrowing money in personal
capacity from people. Complainant's wife
Sadhna Singh sold her plot to Shine City
Infra Project Limited in the year 2014 and
received its sale proceeds. Accused visited
the complainant and asked for paying him
Rs. 4 crore to meet out the financial
difficulties of the said Company. The
complainant relying on representations of
the accused who was his old acquaintance,
lent him Rs. 3,92,00,000/-in presence of
witnessed which was collected by him from
different sources and he assured him to
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
refund the said amount within six months.
Wife of the complainant also paid Rs.
2,00,00,000/- to the accused for purchasing
some plots from said Company on reposing
trust on representations of the accused.
Accused gave 31 cheques to Sadhna Singh
for her two crore rupees but got these
cheques back from her and gave an
allurement of making money double, thus
accused took total Rs. 5,92,00,000/- from
the complainant and his wife which he
failed to repay. He had not given any plot
to them lying with said Company. At one
point of time, he gave a cheque of Rs.
3,24,00,000/-
to
the
complainant
on
10.5.2018 but subsequently he asked him to
not present the said cheque for encashment
but ultimately he did not pay the amount of
said cheque. The complainant gave six
cheques bearing dates 20.4.2021, 25.4.2021
of different amounts to discharge the debts
of the complainant and his wife and assured
him to pay remaining Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
soon. The complainant produced said
cheques before his bank Union Bank of
India, Raja Talab, Rohaniya, Varanasi,
however, three cheques were dishonoured
with remarks "payment stopped by drawer"
on
13.5.2021.
Three
cheques
were
dishonoured
with
remarks
"payment
stopped by drawer and funds insufficient",
were dishnoured on 11.5.2021 and thus, he
could not get the payment of said six
cheques. After receiving the cheques back
with
said
remarks
of
Bank.
The
complainant gave a registered notice to the
accused through his counsel and when
accused failed to pay the amount of said
cheques, he filed present complaint on
18.6.2021.

4. Learned Special C.J.M. examined
the accused/revisionist by order dated
14.9.2021 under Section 138 N.I. Act for
trial. Accused assailed the said summoning
order before this Court by moving an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.
14311 of 2022 which is said to be pending
before this Court.

5. Accused revisionist moved an
application for discharge on 9.9.2022 with
prayer that the said complaint was based on
false, concocted and baseless facts and is
not maintainable in the eye of law. The
revisionist was informed by the office
bearer or Director of said Company Shine
City Infra Project Limited. He would
neither purchase plots nor he had assured
any dividend to the complainant, in fact
four signed cheques of the accused got
missing in the city of Varanasi which
anyhow came in the hands of complainant
who filled up amounts arbitrarily on said
cheques whereas the accused had informed
the said bank on 1.12.2020 and at P.S. on
27.11.2020 regarding missing of four
cheques and issued instructions to bank to
stop the payment. Relationship of the
complainant and accused were cordial and
he had negotiated with the accused for sale
of his plots at village Lohta for which the
accused had issued two cheques, Cheque
No. 94401 for Rs. 9,00,000/- and Cheuqe
No. 94409 for Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest
money but the complainant had not
presented the said cheques for encashment
and on pretext of missing of said cheques,
he
received
Rs.
18,50,000/-
through
cheques/RTGS and Rs. 50,020, cash from
the accused from 5.11.2020 to 20.1.2020 as
transaction of the complainant has made
with Shine City Infra Limited , whom he
has not impleaded as a party in complaint.
The said complaint is not maintainable and
barred under Prize Chits and Money
Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act 1978
and Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Scheme Act, 2019 and Section 58 N.I. Act
and Section 219 Cr.P.C.
11 All. Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659

6. Learned magistrate dismissed the
said discharge application dated 9.9.2022
by impugned order dated 9.1.2023, wherein
the court observed that complaint has been
filed in respect of dishonor of six cheques
drawn by the accused in favour of
complainant
after
completing
legal
formalities under N.I. Act and accused has
been summoned by the court on finding
sufficient
evidence
against
him
and
evidence has to be recorded during trial.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that learned magistrate has
rejected the discharge application moved
by revisionist vide impugned order in
illegal manner and without considering the
grounds
taken
therein
in
proper
perspective. Impugned order is vitiated by
illegality, irregularity and perversity and is
not sustainable under law. It is further
submitted that four blank cheques which
were kept in the bag were lost by the
revisionist in Sigra Tehsil, Varanasi and the
accused had given information to his Bank
and P.S. with regard to loss of those
cheques, however, said cheques anyhow
got in the hands of complainant and he
filed
a
complaint
subsequently
on
18.6.2021. The revisionist is neither Officer
nor Director in Shine City Infra Project
Limited. He is not involved in purchase of
land and he has not given any promise to
give profit to the complainant. This is also
false to say that revisionist demanded Rs.
4,00,00,000/- as debt from respondent no.
2. The contention of complainant that he
had given Rs. 3.92 crore as debt to the
revisionist is also false. The four signed but
blank cheques were kept by the revisionist
for payment of house construction items
which got misplaced. The revisionist paid
Rs. 90,00,000/- through cheques and cash
to the complainant. Even that respondent
no. 2 filed present complaint with malafide
intention which is highly improbable that
without taking any receipt, complainant
handed over such huge amount of Rs. 3.92
crore as debt to the revisionist and also
gave Rs. 2 crore cash for booking of plots.
In fact wife of complainant herself sold a
plot in favour of complainant and received
Rs. 6.92,000/- from the Company. The
revisionist was in fact working in the said
Company but was neither office bearer nor
the Director of the said Company. Due to
some financial irregularitycommitted by
promoters of the company , the revisionist
was made accused in some criminal cases
lodged under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC
on assumption of being office bearer of
the Company and he has been enlarged
on bail by this Court in most of those
cases. It is nowhere stated in complaint
that revisionist had taken the money or
signed cheques in private capacity. In
absence of impleading the Company in
array of the accused person, complaint
is not maintainable. He has been
wrongly introduced in the complaint as
Director of the said Company. The
accused has not signed the cheques in
private capacity. Complaint is also not
maintainable due to non-compliance of
provisions of Section 141 of N.I. Act.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 submitted that the case is
of summon nature in which there is no
specific provision for discharge, therefore,
discharge
application
was
itself
not
maintainable before court below. The
complainant challenged summoning order
before this Court through application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. but no interim or stay
order was issued therein. The complainant
has issued impugned cheques in personal
capacity and not as authorized signatory of
the Company, therefore, provisions of
Section 141 of N.I. Act are not applicable
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the case. Revision deserves to be
dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist
placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Aneeta Hada vs.
Godfather Travels & Tour Pvt. Ltd., 2012
LawSuit (SC) 244, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court allowed the criminal appeal preferred
against order of High Court dismissing the
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by
the appellant and quashed the proceedings
under Section 138 N.I. Act against the
accused appellant. Hon'ble Apex Court in
said judgment held its own decision in
Sheoratan Aggarwal and another v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 1984 4 SCC 352, runs
counter to the ration laid down in a Larger
Bench judgment in the case of State of
Madras v. C.V. Parekh and another, 1970 3
SCC 491. Hon'ble Apex Court in Anita
Hada's case (supra) reproduced provisions
of Section 141 of N.I. Act as under:-

"15. At this juncture, we may
refer to Section 141 which deals with
offences by companies. As the spine of the
controversy rests on the said provision, it is
reproduced below: -

141. Offences by companies. -
(1) If the person committing an offence
under section 138 is a company, every
person who, at the time the offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to the company for the conduct
of the business of the company, as well as
the company, shall be deemed to be guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded
against
and
punished
accordingly;

Provided that nothing contained
in this sub-section shall render any person
liable to punishment if he proves that the
offence
was
committed
without
his
knowledge, or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence:

Provided further that where a
person is nominated as a Director of a
Company by virtue of his holding any
office or employment in the Central
Government or State Government or a
financial corporation owned or controlled
by the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, he shall
not be liable for prosecution under this
Chapter.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-section (1), where any
offence under this Act, has been committed
by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or is attributable
to, any neglect on the part of, any director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the
company, such director, manager, secretary
or other officer shall also be deemed to be
guilty of that offence and shall be liable to
be
proceeded
against
and
punished
accordingly."

16. On a reading of the said
provision, it is plain as day that if a person
who commits offence under Section 138 of
the Act is a company, the company as well
as every person in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct
of business of the company at the time of
commission of offence is deemed to be
guilty of the offence. The first proviso
carves out under what circumstances the
criminal liability would not be fastened.
Sub-section (2) enlarges the criminal
liability by incorporating the concepts of
connivance, negligence and consent that
engulfs many categories of officers. It is
worth noting that in both the provisions,
11 All. Parmeshwar Srivastava @ Pappi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
661
there is a 'deemed' concept of criminal
liability."

10. The court held that in view of our
aforesaid analysis, we arrive at the
irresistible conclusion that for maintaining
the prosecution under Section 141 of the
Act, arraigning of a company as an accused
is imperative. The other categories of
offenders can only be brought in the
dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious
liability as the same has been stipulated in
the provision itself. We say so on the basis
of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh
(supra) which is a three-Judge Bench
decision. Thus, the view expressed in
Sheoratan
Agarwal
(supra)
does
not
correctly
lay
down
the
law
and,
accordingly, is hereby overruled. The
decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the
qualifier as stated in paragraph 37. The
decision in Modi Distilleries has to be
treated restricted to its own facts as has
been explained by us hereinabove.

11. However, in Anita Hada's case
(supra), appellant was authorized signatory
of the Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956. She issued cheques
in favour of the respondent Company
which was dishonoured as a consequence
of which the respondent initiated a criminal
action by filing a complaint before the
magistrate under Section 138 N.I. Act.

12. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further placed reliance on a judgment
Himanshu Vs. B. Shivamurthy & Anr., Crl.
Appeal No. 1465 of 2009, decided on
17.1.2019, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
held that in absence of Company being
arraigned, complaint against the appellant,
therefore, was not maintainable. The
appellant had singed the cheque as Director
of the Company and on its behalf.
Moreover, in the absence of a notice of
demand being served on the company and
without compliance with the proviso to
Section 138 N.I. Act, High Court was not
in an error in holding that Company could
not be arraigned as an accused.

13. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v. Vijay D.
Salvi, Crl. Appeal No. 1472 of 2009,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held in
paragraph no. 11 as follows:-

"11.
About
the
liability
under Section 138 of the NI Act, where the
cheque drawn by the employee of the
appellant company on his personal account,
even if it be for discharging dues of the
appellant-company and its Directors, the
appellant-company and its Directors cannot
be made liable under Section138. Thus, we
observe that in the abovementioned case,
the personal liability was upheld and the
Company and its Directors were absolved
of the liability. The logic applied was that
the Section itself makes the drawer liable
and no other person. This Court in P.J.
Agro Tech Limited (supra) noted as under:

"An action in respect of a
criminal or a quasi-criminal provision has
to be strictly construed in keeping with the
provisions alleged to have been violated.
The proceedings in such matters are in
personam and cannot be used to foist an
offence on some other person, who under
the statute
was
not liable for
the
commission of such offence."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. In P. Rasiya vs. Abdul Nazeer and
another, Crl. Appeal Nos. 1233-35 of 2022,
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the
appeal against conviction of the case under
Section 138 N.I. Act observed that
presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act is
a statutory presumption and, thereafore,
once it is presumed that the cheque is
issued in whole or in part of any debt or
other liability which is in favour of the
complaint/holder of the cheque, in that case
it is for the accused to prove the contrary.
The High Court has also failed to
appreciate that it was exercising the
revisional jurisdiction and there were
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below.

15. From perusal of impugned order
and in the light of aforesaid judicial
authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is
found that learned court below has
addressed issues raised by the accused in
discharge application in proper manner
while dismissing the discharge application
moved by revisionist by a reasoned order.
From perusal of cheques in question,
Cheque No. 94401, 94405, 94406, 94407,
94408, 94409, which is admittedly signed
by revisionist, it bears that said cheques are
signed by him not as an authorized
signatory of the Company, say Shine City
Infra Project Limited but it appears to be
singed in his private capacity and not as
authorized signatory of the company. The
payee of the cheque is complainant who is
not a Company but an individual.

16. On perusal of complaint also it
appears that grievance of the complainant
is directly against the revisionist projected
himself as office bearer of the said
company, therefore in these facts situation,
the mandate of Section 141 N.I. Act is not
applicable in the case wherein it is provided
that if the person committing an offence
under Section 138 N.I. Act is Company,
every person responsible to the Company
for the conduct of negligence of the
company as well as the Company shall be
deemed
guilty
of the
offence.
The
complaint is not legally barred for non
arrangement of Company as an accused
and the complaint filed against revisionist
for charge under Section 138 N.I. Act is
maintainable as such. The other issues
raised by complainant are matter of
evidence and which can only be decided
after tender of evidence by the trial court
and no finding can be given in present
revision thereon. There is also force in the
submissions of learned counsel for the
respondent that there is no provision for
discharge in the scheme of Cr.P.C. in a
summons case and offence under Section
138 N.I. Act is in the nature of summons
case and under Section 143 of the Act,
the court of Judicial Magistrate is
empowered to try the cases summarily.
In summons cases, there is a provision
under Section 258 Cr.P.C. wherein in a
summons case instituted otherwise than
complaint, magistrate is vested with the
jurisdiction to stop the proceedings at
any stage without pronouncing any
judgment in certain cases and such
stoppage of proceedings, if made before
the evidence of principle witnesses has
been recorded, it will have effect of
discharge, however, said provision is
not applicable in a case instituted upon
complaint, therefore, no good reason is
found warranting interference of this
Court in impugned order passed by
learned court below.

17. Case is liable to be decided on
merits instead of being dismissed at pretrial stage, as prayed by learned counsel for
the revisionist before trial court as well as
before this Court by seeking his discharge.
Impugned order is not vitiated by any
11 All. Smt. Khairunnisha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
illegality, irregularity. Revision is devoid of
merit and deserves to be dismissed.

18. Revision stands dismissed,
accordingly.

19. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that in view of rejection of
discharge application by court below,
moved by applicant and filing of criminal
revision
before
this
Court,
present
application has lost its significance.

20. Consequently, Application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. also stands dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 663
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3577 of 2023

Smt. Khairunnisha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Revision - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506 & 302
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 319 - Power to proceed against
other persons appearing to be guilty of
offence - "Judges condemned when guilty
is acquitted" - innocent should not be
punished, at the same time, real culprit
should not be allowed to escape -
Applicability /guidelines - for summoning
a person to face trial under Section 319
Cr.P.C.- discretionary and extra ordinary
power - should only be exercised sparingly
and in cases where the circumstances
warrant it, not because the Magistrate or
Sessions Judge believes another person
may be guilty - Only where strong and
cogent evidence occurs against the person
from the evidence led before the court
that such power should be exercised and
not in a casual or cavalier manner - test
under Section 319 - one which is more
than prima facie case as exercised at the
time of framing of the charge - but short
of satisfaction to an extent that the
evidence if goes unrebutted would lead to
conviction.
(Para -15, 16, 17, 36)

Revisionist indulged actively in murder of
deceased along with other co-accused persons -
an application made by informant under Section
319 Cr.P.C. - to face trial along with other two
co-accused -Trial judge summoned revisionist to
face trial - Whether recorded his prima facie
satisfaction - while passing impugned order
under Section 319 Cr.P.C.(Para - 8, 12, 37)

HELD:-Trial judge found that presence of
revisionist at the time and place of incident is
prima facie visible, as evidenced by the
statements of witnesses under Sections 161
Cr.P.C., P.W.-1 and P.W.2 in dock, and other
evidence.
Revisionist
has
been
rightly
summoned to face trial alongside other coaccused. No illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order. No interference by this
revisional Court under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
(Para - 37, 38)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs St. of Punj., 2023
(1) SCC 289

2. Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2014) 3 SCC
92

3. Mohammad Espini Vs Yogendra Chandak &
ors., AIR 2017 SC 4804

4. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj., (2017) 7
SCC 706