ANAND KUMAR PORWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA at a great length and perused the material on record.

(2.) I have considered arguments of both the sides. Dealing with the submissions in a seriatum, so far as the first contention regarding passing of a detailed order while summoning an accused is concerned, it is trite law that no detailed order is required to be passed at the stage of summoning. No meticulous examination of facts is required to be done at that stage. By summoning an accused, only a proceeding is initiated. Accused person is required to appear in the Court to answer implanted charge. For initiation of proceeding, a detailed examination of facts and circumstances of the prosecution case are not required nor the scheme of the Code provides for such an exercise by the summoning court. Apex Court has interpreted Section 204 Cr.P.C and has negated the contention of passing a detailed order while summoning and therefore has not countenanced the contention which has been urged in this Application. What Section 204 of the Code ordains is that "if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding," he shall issue summons for the attendance of the accused in a summons case and in case of a warrant trial he shall issue warrant or, in case he thinks fit, a summon for such an appearance of the accused. The aforesaid Section nowhere mandates the Magistrate to record reasons for summoning. Thus reasons for summoning can be had from the entire material on record and it is not a legal requirement of statute that Magistrate must record reasons for summoning a person as accused. Inking of such reasons has consciously been eschewed by legislature and therefore should not be read into Section 204 of the Code. On this aspect authoritative support can be drawn from the decision of the apex court in U. P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd., 2000 AIR(SC) 1456 wherein it has been held by the apex court as follows:-

(3.) In above view, once the gray area of interpretation, as has been canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant since has already been filled up by the decision of the Apex Court, that aspect of legal interpretation no longer remains res-integra for this court to take a contrary view as Article 142 come in that way.