GOVINDRAM SURAJMAL SARDA Vs. SHARMILA KANHAIYALAL JAISINGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Being aggrieved by the Revisional order dated 21.4.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Nos.668 of 2005 and 669 of 2005 allowing the applications (Exs. 23 and 26) in Summary Criminal Case No.534 of 2005 and 535 of 2005 respectively the present revisions were filed by the proposed accused.

(2.) IN support of the revision application, Mr.A.J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicants in both the revisions, vehemently argued that the revisional court committed error in exercising its revisional power by allowing the aforesaid applications only on the ground that the proposed accused-applicant no.3 Damodhar herein, is also the Proprietor of applicant no.1-firm. According to him, the non-applicant/ complainant did not place any evidence on record either oral or documentary before the trial Court or the revisional court to show that present applicant no.3 could be issued accused summons when admittedly the cheque in question was signed by applicant no.2 Narsingh. Mr.Thakkar then argued that it is admitted fact that the cheque in question was never signed by applicant no.3 and it was signed by applicant no.2 Narsingh. The prosecution against applicant no.2 Narsingh has already commenced and he is facing the same. According to him, issuance of process even under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a serious matter and before making a person accused in a criminal case, care is required to be taken by the Court to find out the material and prima facie case for issuance of accused summons. According to him, this is a case wherein there is absolutely no evidence and still the Court has issued accused summons to applicant no.3 by setting order refusing to do so.

(3.) CRIMINAL Revision Nos.181 of 2007 and 182 of 2007 are allowed. Impugned judgments and orders dated 21.4.2007 in Criminal Revision Nos.668 of 2005 and 669 of 2005 are quashed and set aside. Liberty reserved in favour of non-applicant to apply to the Court after commencement of the trial for impleadment, if permissible in law. Proceedings in the trial Court are expedited.