SHAYAM AND COMPANY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions (Cr. Misc. Nos. 8960M of 1995, 8966 M of 1995 and 8971 M of 1995) are being disposed of by this common judgment as the point involved in all these cases is similar. In all these cases; complaint was filed by the respondent Bank against the petitioners in respect of offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court vide it order dated 27th Sept. 1989 summoned the accused including the petitioners to face trial under Sections 467/468/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioners by filing revision petitions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) before Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, dated 25th January, 1995, held that the order summoning the accused passed by the learned trial Court was an interlocutory order and in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code, these revision petitions were not maintainable, and as such these petitions were dismissed. The aforesaid orders, dated 25th January, 1995 have been challenged in these petitions. Notice of these petitions was issued to the respondents on the limited point as to whether revision petition against the order of summoning is maintainable under Section 397 of the Code.

(2.) Mr. Deoli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order summoning the accused, even though may not be final, but it is not an interlocutory order so as to attract the bar of sub-Section (2) of Section 397 of the Code. He submitted that such an order must be taken an order of the type falling in the middle course. He further submitted that in case, the summoning order in question was reversed, it would have culminated in cessation of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. He, therefore, contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that a revision petition is not maintainable against the order summoning the accused. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments :1) Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 : (1977 Cri LJ 1891);2) Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165);3) V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962 : (1980 Cri LJ 690).

(3.) Mr. Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the order summoning the accused passed by the learned trial Court was essentially an interlocutory order and in view of the bar under Section 397(2) of the Code, the revision petition against such an order vas not maintainable. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda were perfectly legal and in accordance with law laid down by this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments rendered by various single Judge Benches of this Court:(1) Kumalu Din alias Kamal v. Mangal Das, (1994) 2 Rec Cri R 82 (Punj and Har);(2) Dr. T. N. Chaturvedi v. Karnail Singh, (1994) 3 Rec Cri R 517 (Punj and Har);(3) Khushal Singh v. Mohinder Singh, (1994) 1 Rec Cri R 506 (Punj and Har).