S. D. PANDIT, J, J.

( 1 ) RANJITKUMAR Chakravarti, original accused in Criminal Case No. 2029 of 1982 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, has filed the present application.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-Co-operative Bank of Baroda, has lodged a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda, against the present revision applicant and one more person by alleging that they had misappropriated an amount of Rs 67,000/- by dishonestly encashing the cheques in the accounts standing in the name of the present revision applicant. The complainant had examined its Manager by way of leading evidence before charge. Besides, the oral evidence of the Manager of the complainant, the documentary evidence, including the confession statement given by the present revision applicant, was produced and considering the said material, the learned Chief Judicial magistrate was pleased to pass an order on 21st January, 1984 to frame the charge against the present revision applicant and other accused under Secs. 406, 408, 409 and 420 read with Sec. 114 of IPC. The present revision applicant had challenged the said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by preferring a revision application before the Sessions judge, Baroda, being Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1984. The said Criminal revision Application No. 32 of 1984 heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, baroda and by his speaking order passed on 10th June, 1986, he rejected the same and, thereafter, the present application has been filed in this Court.

( 3 ) IT has been rightly urged before me on behalf of both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely, original complainant as well as the State, that the second revision application is not tenable. If the provisions of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure are considered, then it would be quite clear that a party who has gone before the Sessions judge to challenge the order in revision cannot against come before the High Court in revision to challenge the same order. But Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to this Court to consider the order in order to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. I, therefore, proceed to consider this application as an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the revision applicant vehemently urged before me that, after the private complaint wasr lodged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to pass order under Sec. 156 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure, directing the police to carry out the investigation. He contended before me that, after passing such an order and without getting any report of investigation from the police, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has proceeded to issue the process against the present revision applicant It seems that the same submissions were also made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but in view of the observations made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order passed on 21st January, 1984, which is at page 16, the said contention could not be entertained and allowed. It has been clearly mentioned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that, after the police were directed to carry out the investigation under Sec. 156 (3), the police had submitted the report and after considering the said report, the order of issuance of process was passed on 21st January, 1984. After the issuance of process, the present revision applicant had appeared and he had also taken part in the proceeding of recording evidence before the charge. Therefore, in the circumstances, the said contention raised on behalf of the revision applicant could not be accepted and entertained and the same is, therefore, rejected

( 5 ) THE next contention raised on behalf of the revision applicant is that, there is no sufficient material or evidence for framing the charge again

Click Here to Read the rest of this document