Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NARENDER KUMAR JAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/08/1999
BENCH:
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, K.Vankataswami
JUDGMENT:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.
Leave is granted.
The second respondent preferred a complaint against
the appellant and three others on October 12, 1994. The
appellant is accused No.4 in Criminal Case No.6096 of 1994
in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. Though
the complaint was filed under Sections 406, 416,420,34 and
114 of IPC, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued
summoning order only under Section 406 IPC on October 17,
1994. That order required the appellant to be present in
the court on November 4, 1996. Two of the accused, No.1 and
No.2 challenged the summoning order by filing Misc.Criminal
Application No.580 of 1995 before the High Court which was
dismissed on February 28, 1995. Feeling aggrieved, they
preferred Special Leave Petition No.2145 of 1995 before this
court which was also dismissed on July 14, 1995.
Thereafter, the appellant challenged the said summoning
order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in revision in
the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 1997. On
dismissal of that petition, he filed Special Criminal
Application No.266 of 1998 in the High Court of Gujarat. By
order under appeal, the High Court dismissed the petition.
The appellant has thus challenged that order of the High
Court in this appeal. Mr.J.C.Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant was
only a General Power of Attorney holder of the partners who
had become owner of the goods; there is no case against the
appellant under Section 406, IPC so the High Court should
have quashed the proceedings. Heard learned counsel for the
respondents.
On the facts of this case, in our view, no case is
made out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after
examining the facts in detail and taking note of the fact
that similar petition by accused Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed
by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition filed
against that order of the High Court was also dismissed by
this Court did not consider it appropriate to interfere in
the order of issuing summons. The High Court in the order
under appeal, noted that it was only after two years (in
fact it was more than three years) of dismissal of challenge
by accused Nos.1 and 2 against the summoning order by this
court, the appellant filed the revision before the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Additional Sessions Judge. On considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case the High Court found it
inappropriate to interdict the proceedings. We do not
consider it appropriate, at this stage, to examine the facts
to find out whether prima facie case under Section 406
I.P.C. is made out to issue a summon against the appellant.
There is no illegality in the impugned order of the High
Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.