SHEO NATH VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURYA Prasad, J. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Mau in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1991-State v. Sheo Nath Verma and others under Section 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, summoning the revisionists.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionists has not pointed out any thing in the course of his arguments such as to indicate that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, has committed illegality, material irregularity of impropriety in passing the impugned order. THE Magistrate has passed the impugned order not in a mechanical manner, but after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record. It is the judicial discretion of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to summon the revisionists accused. He has exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously while summoning the revisionists.