SURESH KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Petition it is, inter alia, prayed that orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26.4.2004 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21.8.2004 be set aside. It is also, however, prayed that the petitioner/accused be discharged in the above case. Although, the prayer is not happily worded, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is actually aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner was summoned.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 10.1.2003 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. However, on that date, he directed the issuance of summons in respect of the accused persons who had been put up in Column No. 4 of the charge-sheet. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, he did not direct issuance of any summons but noted the following: "Investigation against accused Suresh Kumar Garg put in Column No. 2 is still on." Thereafter, on 4.2.2003, without any supplementary challan being filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed issuance of summons in respect of the present petitioner also indicating that there was sufficient ground for summoning him.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2003, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the same. He pointed out that at that point of time, the decision of the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Others, V (2004) SLT 353=III (2004) CCR 176 (SC)=2004 7 SCC 338 had not come. As such, the application for recalling of the summoning order was maintainable at that time. Anyhow, the said application was dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 26.4.2004. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for recall of the summoning orders, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Sessions Court which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 21.8.2004. In the meanwhile, the decision in Adalat Prasad's case (supra) has come which indicates that, in any event, the Magistrate would not have any power to recall the summoning order. It is in this context, that the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that now he is directly challenging the order dated 4.2.2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner was directed to be summoned.