Advocates:
['SHRI GANESH GOLE', 'SHRI GIRISH S GODBOLE', '', 'FOR R NO TO', 'SHRI V P VAZE', 'SHRI G S GODBOLE', 'RESP NOS TO ARE SERVED']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3648 OF 2002

H.P.Daga and Company .. Applicant

Versus

Niwas spinning Mills Ltd.

and Ors. .. Respondents

Mr.Ganesh Gole for applicant

Mr.V.P.Vaze for respondent Nos. 1 to 6

Mr.S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P. for State.

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

DATE : 29th November 2005.

P.C.

. Heard Mr.Gole, learned Advocate for

2

applicant, Mr.Vaze for respondent Nos. 1 to 6

and A.P.P. for respondent No.7.

2. Applicant is original complainant. He

has filed a complaint bearing C.C.208 of 2000 in

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur

against respondent Nos. 1 to 7 for offences

punishable under section 418, 465, 469, 471 and

500 read with 34 I.P.C. and under section 224,

227, 230 of Companies Act.

3. Initially it appears that the learned

Judge directed police to investigate and issued

an order in that behalf on 9th August 2000.

Complaint was to be forwarded to concerned police

station for investigation by this order. Prior

to returnable date stipulated in the said order,

verification statement was recorded and

thereafter the learned Judge proceeded to issue

process against all the accused (respondent Nos.

1 to 7 herein). This was done although a

3

negative report was submitted by the police.

4. Aggrieved by these orders, criminal

revision application was preferred by respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Judge allowed the

same by his order dated 25th June 2002.

5. Mr.Gole, appearing for applicant submits

that the sessions Judge was in error in reversing

this order inasmuch as all that the learned

Magistrate had done was to issue a process. He

has satisfied himself from the averments in the

complaint that it discloses commission of

offences prima facie and therefore, directed that

the accused be summoned before him. This was

well within his powers and if any irregularity

was committed by him in exercise of the same that

could not have been set right in revisional

jurisdiction. Revisional jurisdiction is not

meant to correct all procedural irregularities,

unless and until, the same have resulted in

4

manifest injustice. In this case, such being not

a grievance, learned Judge was in error in

exercising his revisional jurisdiction.

6. With the assistance of Mr.Gole, I have

perused the complaint. In my view, apart from

the fact that the Magistrate erred in issuing

process relying upon the verification statement

even prior to returnable date, the complaint read

as a whole is no