DINESH CHANDRA JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against orders dated 27-2-93, 20-5-93 and 26-9-93. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the matter in question is purely of civil nature and no criminal liability is made out and it is just dispute of accounting which can only be decided by the Civil Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed il legality in summoning the accused persons. Learned counsel for the opposite party first ly raised objection regarding maintainability of the revision on the ground that a revision can be passed only against one order and not against three orders and secondly, it is con tended that the orders dated 20-5-94 and 29-6-93 are only consequential orders of order dated 27- 2-93. There is force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Vide order dated 20-5-93, only nonmalleable warrants were issued. Accused persons did not appear and again vide order dated 29-6-93, the non-bailable warrants were issued. These two orders were not only consequential orders of main order of summoning dated 27-2-93 but they were also purely interlocutory order and the revision was not main tainable. As far as the order dated 27-2-1993 is concerned, the learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the revision was filed on 16-9-93, and it was barred by time and no application for con donation of delay was moved. It is clear that time shall first be counted for the date of 29-6-93 in view of earlier discussions. It is clear that main order was passed on 27-2-93 and considering the order the revision is barred by time. Further, accused were summoned and they had a right to file objection before the learned Magistrate. Still now the revisionists may appear before the Court to file objections against summoning order. The learned lower Court has found prima facie case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. I am not convinced with this contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that it was purely a case of civil liability. Considering the facts, there is no force in this revision which is hereby rejected. Revision rejected. .