Summary
When issuing process on a police report, a Magistrate must apply judicial mind and find sufficient ground to proceed, but need not expressly record reasons for that satisfaction. A summons order is revisable; however, revision does not permit a premature weighing of prosecution evidence and possible defences. The order summoning the respondent on a supplementary charge sheet in an alleged foreign-remittance conspiracy was restored, leaving proof and admissibility for trial.
Issues
- Whether reasons must be expressly recorded when issuing process after cognizance on a police report.
- Whether revision lay against the summons order and justified the High Court’s assessment of the evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 190(1)(b) and 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Issuance of process on a police report required satisfaction of sufficient ground to proceed, without an express narration of reasons or evaluation of evidence for conviction. (¶¶ 15–22, 37)
- Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973A summons order was intermediate or quasi-final and amenable to revision, but the High Court could not substitute an appellate assessment of the evidence for the Magistrate’s non-perverse satisfaction. (¶¶ 23–25, 49–51)
Held
- Authorities concerning cognizance on private complaints were distinguished from cognizance on a police report, where the Magistrate had the investigation materials. The absence of expressly recorded reasons did not invalidate this summons order; application of mind and statutory satisfaction remained necessary. (¶¶ 16–22, 50)
- The bar against revision of purely interlocutory orders did not exclude a challenge to issuance of summons. Maintainability did not justify examining the merits as though deciding guilt. (¶¶ 23–25, 49)
- The alleged scheme concerned a chain of cash collection and transfers abroad through companies, not merely presentation of forged bills. Witness statements, banking transactions and call records furnished prima facie material for proceeding against the respondent. The High Court erred in brushing those materials aside. (¶¶ 26–31, 38–48)
- Questions whether a witness’s statement was hearsay or admissible as res gestae, and whether credits were genuine business receipts or loans, were left for trial. Evidentiary weight and ordinary possible defences were not to be adjudicated at issuance of process, subject to an apparent legal bar or other ex-facie legal defence. (¶¶ 32–37, 39, 43–48)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and Magistrate’s cognizance and process on the second supplementary charge sheet restored. Respondent directed to appear on 27 February 2019; trial court to proceed according to law.