The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complaint must disclose a prima facie offence punishable under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code to justify the issuance of process against the accused.

P.V. HARDAS, J.

1. The applicant/original complainant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15th February, 2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Criminal Revision Application No. 64 of 2000, filed at the instance of the present respondents 1 to 3 has filed the present revision challenging the aforesaid judgment. The learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao by the aforesaid judgment had allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by the present respondents 1 to 3 and had dismissed the Criminal Case No. 23/P/1994, filed by the present applicant, against the present respondents 1 to 3 and 11 others.

2. The applicant/original complainant had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco, on 1st February, 1994, alleging therein that the respondents 1 to 3 and 11 others had committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197, 199, 208, 209, 210, 420 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the applicant that the applicant was the Managing Director of M/s. Bakhle Tyresoles Private Limited having its Registered Office at Vasco-da-Gama and its factory situated at Kakoda Industrial Estate, Kakoda, Curchorem. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, which is annexed to the revision memo as Exhibit "C" the accused have been described as being connected in their official capacity as employees of the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as M.S.F.C. for the sake of brevity). The accused No.2 therein was described as the Chairperson of the M.S.F.C. It is alleged by the applicant that he had applied for project finance on 4th November, 1985 and had requested the M.S.F.C. for a term loan for the purchase of machinery, building and plot. The M.S.F.C. had sanctioned a total loan of Rs. 24.15 lakhs sometime in April, 1986. The loan was to be re-financed by the Industrial Development Bank of India. The major grievance in the complaint seems to be that the M.S.F.C. had been deducting certain sums towards the deposit insurance and credit guarantee. Subsequent inquiries conducted by the applicant revealed that since 1985 the M.S.F.C. was not participating in the aforesaid scheme of the Credit Guarantee Corporation and the M.S.F.C was not entitled to charge any guarantee fees. Thus, the complainant alleged that the charging the credit guarantee fee, the M.S.F.C. and the accused named therein had committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, at the very outset, has stated that offences under Section 193, 196, 197, 199, 208, 209 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code are offences which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was not entitled to issue process for. The learned counsel has, thus, restricted the scope of the complaint to the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the offence of criminal breach of trust if the allegations in the complaint reveal the commission of the said offence. Be that as it may, on the presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate recorded the verification statement of the applicant/ complainant and on perusal of the affidavit of two witnesses and the documents in support of the complaint, by his order, dated 20th October, 2000, issued process against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197, 199, 208, 209, 210, 420 and 477-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The present respondents 1 to 3 being aggrieved by the issuance of process filed criminal Revision Application No.64 of 2000 before the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. In the said revision the applicant/complainant was respondent No.1 and respondents 2 to 12 were the other 11 accused. It appears from a perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 2 that respondent 2 to 12 that is that 11 other accused could not be ser