Z.K. Saiyed, J.

Rule. Learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

1. In the instant Revision Application, the challenge of the petitioner is to the order dated 15.11.14 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat, passed for taking cognizance of the offence alleged under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860, and issuing process against the petitioner in Case No. 62851 of 2014. The short impugned Order reads as follows-

"Exhibit - 1

Criminal Case No. 62851/2014

Order

I take in consideration Charge Sheet/Complaint for the offence of IPC Section 420, 465, 467, 468. etc

Summons to be issued against the accused.

Sd/-

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat".

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the impugned order qua the petitioner is not only cryptic, but also totally mechanical, taking cognizance and issuing process without any application of mind and without there being any such material against the petitioner, which can be considered as sufficient to subject him to face the rigors of trial. As per the petitioner, it is limited but necessary pre-requisite for taking cognizance and issuing process, to arrive at prima facie satisfaction regarding existence of such evidence on record which may be sufficient to proceed against the Petitioner for the alleged offences. According to the petitioner, there is no such evidence in the entire charge sheet filed by the Respondent and in absence thereof the impugned Order is liable to set aside, or else it would cause substantial injustice and would be abuse of process of law on the vice of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the Revision Application and also argued on merits of the application. A Counter Affidavit was also filed.

4. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that-

4.1 The Petitioner could have invoked remedy under Section 482 of CrPC but not under the Revisionary Jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC, that too after considerable delay.

4.2 He submitted that even otherwise, the challenge to an order taking cognizance has no merits as there is no requirement to record reasons for taking cognizance. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 745, wherein it was observed that-

"6. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B......"

4.3 He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nupur Talwar v. CBI, (2012) 11 SCC 465 in which challenge was by the Complainant against a detailed Order taking cognizance against the Complainant, whereby the closure report filed by the police as well as the protest petition filed by the Complainant, were both rejected by the Trial Court with a detailed judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia observed that-

"11. Undoubtedly, merely for taking cognizance and/or for issuing process, reasons may not be recorded....."

4.4 He further argued that the matter involves significant revenue and some complexity. It requires careful examination of document of enquiry/investigation carried out so far. Total hawala is likely to be more than 5000 Crores INR. Bogus bill of entry is the genus of the scam. Total 861 entries were under scrutiny by custom Department out of which at least 454 bill of entries have been found to be bogus amounting to Rs. 2846 Crores (Rs. 28,46,51,58,616/-).

4.5 He submitted that out of these bogus bill of entries, FIR for 17 bill of entries to the tune of 104 crores transferred by Hawala is under question. This transfer has been carried out thro