MOHINDER KUMAR SETH Vs. DARSHAN LAL KANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the revision filed by the accused was accepted and the order of summoning passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside for want of sanction.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Mohinder Kumar Seth, complainant had filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 407, 409 read with Section 120-B IPC against three accused namely Darshan Lal Kansal, Piara Lal Garg and Mrs. Romila Dubey, officials of the Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Limited. After recording the preliminary evidence and hearing the counsel for the complainant and perusing the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide order dated 25.10.1994, found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused under Section 409 IPC. Accordingly, all the three accused were ordered to be summoned for the offence under Section 409 IPC. Aggrieved against the order of summoning passed by the learned Magistrate, two of the accused namely Darshan Lal Kansal and Piara Lal Garg filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. During the pendency of the revision petition before the Sessions Court, the third accused namely Mrs. Romila Dubey, IAS filed an application through her counsel for permission to argue the revision petition.

(3.) WHILE hearing the arguments in this case on 8.9.2004, I was of the opinion that notice to respondent No. 3 (Mrs. Romila Dubey, IAS) was also required to be issued. Accordingly, it was directed that notice to respondent No. 3 be also issued. Sh. A.R. Takkar, Advocate accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 and filed vakalathnama and the case was adjourned for arguments.