IMPORTANT POINT
High Court cannot reduce sentence on misplaced sympathy.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The respondent was proceeded under Section 304A of the Indian Penal code for having committed the death of one Bachhraj due to rash and negligent driving. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chachoda, District Guna, awarded the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- to the respondent by his order dated 19.2.2007 which was left undisturbed in appeal by the Sessions Court at District Guna.

3. The respondent filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The only point which was argued on behalf of the respondent in the High Court was with respect to the sentence, that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by the respondent by then which was only 34 days. The High Court has accepted the plea and reduced the sentence only on the ground that the trial was pending since 1999. We are not impressed by this reasoning given by the High Court. A life has been lost due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent which could not have been ignored.

4. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chachoda, District Guna, awarding punishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The respondent will surrender in two weeks, failing which he shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Appeal allowed.

******

2014(1) Crimes 86 (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.

Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia —Appellant

versus

Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd.

and Ors. —Respondents

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1997-1998 of 2013

Decided on 25.11.2013

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 201 and 204 read with Section 362—Issuance of summons—Review of order—Magistrate is required to issue summons for attendance of accused only on examination of complaint and on satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance of offence and that it is competent to take such cognizance of offence—Once decision is taken and summon is issued, in absence of a power of review including inherent power to do so, remedy lies before High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Article 227 of Constitution of India and not before Magistrate—Once Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence forms his opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and issues summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., there is no question of going back following procedure under Section 201 Cr.P.C.—In absence of any power of review or recall order of issuance of summons, Magistrate cannot recall summon in exercise of power under Section 201 Cr.P.C.

Held: The aforesaid provisions make it clear that the Magistrate is required to issue summons for attendance of the accused only on examination of the complaint and on satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for taking cognizance of the offence and that it is competent to take such cognizance of offence. Once the decision is taken and summon is issued, in the absence of a power of review including inherent power to do so, remedy lies before the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not before the Magistrate. Section 201 Cr.P.C., as noticed earlier, can be applied immediately on receipt of a complaint, if the Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offence. Once the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence forms his opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding and issues summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., there is no question of going back following the procedure under Section 201 Cr.P.C. In absence of any power of review or recall the order of issuance of summons, the Magistrate cannot recall the summon in exercise of power under Section 201 Cr.P.C. The first question is thus answered in negative and in favour of