KARTAR GOODS TRANSPORT CO Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for petitioner and learned A.A.G. for State of Punjab and learned Advocate for private respondent.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in dismissing the revision petition. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P -3, which is a judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. He has considered the argument of the respondent's Advocate that the summoning order is an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable and has alleged that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, dismissed the revision petition. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of Amar Nath and ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1977 S.C. 2185 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the order summoning the appellant was one which was a matter of moment and which did not involve a decision regarding the rights of the appellants. If the appellants were not summoned, then they could not have faced the trial at all, but by compelling the appellants to face a trial without proper application of mind cannot be held to be an interlocutory matter but one which decided a serious question as to the rights of the appellants to be put on trial. It is further held that this being the position, a revision against this order was fully competent under Section 397(1) or under Section 482 of the Code, because the scope of both these Sections in a matter of this kind is more or less the same.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the respondent has relied on the judgement in a case K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and Anr., 1992(1) R.C.R. 232, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the summoning order issued by the Magistrate is an interim order and not a judgement and the Magistrate has judicial discretion to drop the proceedings on reconsideration. The argument based on this principle is not applicable in the present case because it does not say that the summoning order is interlocutory order so asto bar the revision petition. Thus, this case does not help the respondents. Of course, it has been stated before me that another co -accused in this case moved revision application and it was dismissed by the Sessions Court Criminal Misc. 8960 -M of 1995 was filed in this High Court and the learned Single Judge of this High Court has allowed the petition and set aide the order dated 25.1.1995, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is impugned in this petition, and remanded the cases back to the said Court to dispose of the revision petitions filed by the petitioners of that case on merits in accordance with law.] The learned Single Judge has also held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision petitions shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 S.C.604 and subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.