Court On Its Own Motion vs State

Hon''ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta

These revision petitions were initiated suo motu on the fax received from the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad.

Briefly stated facts of Crl. Rev. Petition No. 136/2011 are that a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by NPR

Finance Ltd. through its attorney Shri Bhupal Singh Bisht u/s 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was

assigned to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 16th July, 2008 on which date the accused Babubhai Malabhai Rabari was summoned. Fresh

summons were issued to the accused returnable on 30th October, 2010 and 21st January, 2011. As the complainant did not take steps, once

again fresh summons were issued returnable on 5th March, 2011 on the complainant filing PF/RC/approved courier/dasti. Report on summons

was not received back. Awaiting the said report on 5th March, 2011, again fresh summons were issued to the accused on filing of

PF/RC/approved courier/dasti, returnable on 23rd April, 2011. Counsel for the complainant was further directed to get summons served through

all possible modes of service and file the report on the next date of hearing.

The copy of summons received by fax shows that Dasti summons have been sent to the accused Babubhai Malabhai Rabari, returnable on 23rd

April, 2011 with type written note on it ""Service be effected by Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court personally and report on the date fixed"". A

perusal of the copy of the summons received from the Registrar General, Gujarat High Court showed that there was apparent

tampering/interpolation in it.

On 24th March, 2011 this court while staying the proceedings before the learned Trial Court and operation of the order dated 5th March, 2011

including execution of the summons sent to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court issued notice to the complainant through its attorney and counsel

for the complainant as well.

Reply affidavits by the authorized representative of the complainant and the counsel were filed. It is stated in the affidavit that in usual course of

practice in cases u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act pertaining to banks and finance companies where summons in bulk are prepared, the Ahlmad

takes the help of attorneys/authorized representatives/executives of the complainant for preparing the summons. According to the authorized

attorney of the complainant, they had filed 11 cases and amongst them dasti summons/non-bailable warrants only in six cases mentioned at Sr.

Nos. (i) to (vi) of the affidavit were handed over to him. However, summons/Bailable Warrants in 5 cases mentioned at Sr. Nos. (vii) to (xi) were

not handed over by the Ahlmad either to him or to Shri Prakash Chand. It may be noted that the present complaint related to Sr. No. 10 in the

affidavit and for that no summons/bailable warrants had been received by the authorized attorney of the complainant as per the affidavit.

In the facts are that a complaint was filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Bank of India through its Senior Manager

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta u/s 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was assigned to the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate on 27th August, 2008 on which date the accused i.e. M/s International Diamonds Services Limited. Ashok Kumar Jain

and Sunil Kumar Jain were summoned. Accused No. 2 entered appearance and he was admitted to bail. Subsequently, fresh bailable warrants

were issued against accused No. 2 and 3 on 8th November, 2010 returnable on 28th January, 2011. On 28th January, 2011, the Presiding

Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 9th March, 2011 on which date, the Court issued fresh bailable warrants against the

accused in terms of previous order on filing process fee returnable on 18th May, 2011 on the complainant taking steps within seven days. It was

directed that bailable warrants be sent to process serving agency to be executed through concerned SHO. It was also directed that the concerned

official who will be entrusted with execution of the warrants shall endorse the report for at least three visits which would be made by him for the

purpose of execution along with the respective dates. Dasti warrants were also directed to be given.

A copy of the summons has been received via fax from the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat which shows that summons through SHO,

Pahar Ganj, Delhi have been sent to Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Director M/s International Diamonds Services Limited, 201, Shanti Niketan

Apartments, Opposite Central Bank, Gadgari Marg, Navsari, Gujarat-396445 and two other addresses at Delhi and Mumbai. There is a type

written note on the summons which state, ""Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court is directed to execute it immediately and report and appear on date

fixed"".

A perusal of the copy of fax received from Gujarat High Court showed that there was tampering/interpolation in it as the next date of hearing

fixed in the matter was 18th May, 2011 and not 28th April, 2011 and the warrants were issued on 9th March, 2011 whereas the date of issuance

of warrants was mentioned as 28th January, 2011.

On 31st March, 2011 this court while staying the proceedings before the learned Trial Court and the operation of the order dated 9th March,

2011 including execution of the summons sent to the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court issued, notices to the complainants through its authorized

officer and counsels for the complainants as well.

Reply affidavits by the authorized representative of the complainant and the counsel were filed. It is stated in the affidavit that on 8th

November, 2010, the Trial Court directed issuance of bailable warrants against Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Pursuant thereto, process fee was filed

and bailable warrants against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were issued on 24th November, 2011 for 28th January, 2011. When the counsel for

complainant approached Police Station Paharganj to file the bailable warrants, the officials of the police station refused to take the bailable

warrants as the address of the accused persons was not within the jurisdiction of PS Paharganj, thus warrants could not be executed. On 28th

January, 2011 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was on leave and the Link Magistrate directed issuance of fresh bailable warrants in terms of

previous order for 9th March, 2011. On 9th March, 2011 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate again directed issuance of fresh bailable warrants

against the accused persons for 18th May, 2011 to be sent to the process serving agency and to be executed through concerned SHO. It was

further directed that the concerned official who will be entrusted for execution of warrants shall endorse the report for at least three visits which

would be made by him for the purpose of execution along with the respective dates. It is stated in the affidavit that the deponent has no knowledge

of the fact as to how the bailable warrants dated 28th January, 2011 having interpolation/tempering with next date of hearing as 28th April, 2011

has been sent.

Learned counsel for the bank in her affidavit besides the above facts stated that she took no steps for issuance of warrants in terms of order

dated 28th January, 2011. However, she filed the process fee for issuance of process/warrants in terms of order dated 9th March, 2011 and that

she does not have any knowledge regarding interpolation/tampering on the bailable warrants.

Pursuant to the affidavits received and in view of the apparent interpolation and tampering on the summons purportedly sent by the Court of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, this Court vide orders dated 5th and 9th May, 2011 directed the DCP, Crime Branch to enquire into the matter

as to how the two summons were sent to Hon''ble the Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court and who did the interpolation in the summons.

Pursuant to the directions of this Court DCP, Crime Branch submitted several reports. As per the reports submitted it is revealed that one

Kedar Prasad Meena, Orderly in the Court of Ms. Meenu Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate has done this interpolation. As he had been

reprimanded several times by the Metropolitan Magistrate, he felt insulted and in order to put the Magistrate in trouble he decided to make

interpolation in the summons/warrants of the Court. He had joined one M/s Dev Typing College, Raj Nagar-I where he used to learn typewriting.

The typewriter, which was used for interpolation has been seized and the FSL repot thereon has already been received. Not only the typewriting

on the summons matched with the print of the typewriter which has been seized even the typewriting on the envelops matched with the said

typewriting machine of M/s Dev Typing College. Investigate is complete, charge sheet is ready and is likely to be filed shortly.

In view of the facts revealed and the action taken by the Crime Branch in FIR No. 227/2011 under Sections 420/467/468/120B IPC

registered at PS Crime Branch, dasti summons sent to the accused Babubhai Malabhai Rabari, returnable on 23rd April, 2011 with the typewritten

note on it ""Service be effected by Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court personally and report on the date fixed"" and the summons sent to Sunil Kumar

Jain, Director, M/s International Diamond Services Ltd. returnable on 28th April, 2011 with the typewriting note ""Chief Justice, Gujarat High

Court is directed to execute it immediately and report and appear on date fixed"" are treated as non-est being forged and fabricated.

Keeping in view the seriousness of matter and in order to avoid such incidents in future, it would be appropriate to lay down guidelines to be

followed by the learned Presiding Officers and their subordinate staff so that such incidents do not occur in future. It is, therefore, directed that in

the complaints u/s 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, the parties or their advocates be asked to fill up the process form on their own while signing

on the left bottom corner owning up the responsibility for the accuracy of the information entered therein. The date of appearance and the date of

the process issued will be subsequently filled by the Ahlmad before getting the same signed from the Magistrate concerned. The warrants will be

continued to be issued as per the procedure prescribed earlier. No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. Trial Court

records be sent back forthwith. Interim order passed by this Court staying the proceedings stands vacated. Registrar General is directed to ensure

circulation of these directions to all the concerned judicial officers.

The Petitions are disposed of accordingly.