R B GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-1996 passed by the Spe cial Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Learned Counsel for the revisionist con tended that an order of cognizance had been passed and it cannot be reviewed by the learned Magistrate, as there is no provision to review its earlier order. In Crpc Section 396 clearly provides that same as otherwise provided by this Court or by any other law for the time being in force no Court, when it has signed its judg ment of final order disposing of case, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that taking of cognizance is final order. In this case it may be mentioned that it was a complaint case and accused were sum moned under Section 406, IPC vide order dated 31-8-1994. Under such circumstan ces it cannot be said that the Court has no power to consider objection of the accused who was summoned by the Court by earlier order. It has been consistently held in so many case- laws including Kailsh Chaudhari v. State, 1993 (30) ACC 664; 1994 JIC 422 (All), that when a person is summoned by the Court, the said person has right to appear before the Court and may file ob jection and the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties may reject the objec tion or may allow the objection and drop the proceeding. Order to issue summon under Section 204, Crpc does not amount to judgment or final order (1971 Crlj page 1812 ). Learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that in this case the Managing Director of State Bank of India was summoned not by name but by desig nation and the accused could not have been summoned by designation, rather a person concerned who actually committed crime could have been summoned in this case. Learned Counsel for the opposite party further contended that the case of KM. Maithu, (1992) 1scc page 217; 1992 JIC 212 (SC), has not been set aside even if it is referred to larger bench and in view of the said case law order of summoning was not a final order. Learned Counsel for the revisionist could not show any illegality in the order of the learned lower Court. Therefore, there is no force in the revision. It is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .