Dinesh Chandra Jaiswal vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Krishna Kumar, J.

This revision has been filed against orders dated 27293, 20593 and 26993. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the matter in question is purely of civil nature and no criminal liability is made out and it is just dispute of accounting which can only be decided by the Civil Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed illegality in summoning the accused persons. Learned counsel for the opposite party firstly raised objection regarding maintainability of the revision on the ground that a revision can be passed only against one order and not against three orders and secondly, it is contended that the orders dated 20594 and 29693 are only consequential orders of order dated 27293. There is force in these contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Vide order dated 20593, only nonmalleable warrants were issued. Accused persons did not appear and again vide order dated 29693, the nonbailable warrants were issued. These two orders were not only consequential orders of main order of summoning dated 27293 but they were also purely interlocutory order and the revision was not maintainable. As far as the order dated 2721993 is concerned, the learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the revision was filed on 16993, and it was barred by time and no application for condonation of delay was moved. It is clear that time shall first be counted for the date of 29693 in view of earlier discussions. It is clear that main order was passed on 27293 and considering the order the revision is barred by time. Further, accused were summoned and they had a right to file objection before the learned Magistrate. Still now the revisionists may appear before the Court to file objections against summoning order. The learned lower Court has found prima facie case on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. I am not convinced with this contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that it was purely a case of civil liability. Considering the facts, there is no force in this revision which is hereby rejected.

Revision rejected.