TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the police submitted a final report against some of the persons named in the complaint, the Magistrate could still add the respondents as accused and issue process against them; (ii) Whether the High Court, in revision under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could reappraise the merits and interfere with the Magistrate's order issuing process.
Issue (i): Whether, after the police submitted a final report against some of the persons named in the complaint, the Magistrate could still add the respondents as accused and issue process against them.
Analysis: Once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and not of particular offenders. At that stage it is the Magistrate's duty to determine who the actual offenders are, and if the record discloses prima facie material against persons not sent up by the police, process may validly be issued against them. The Magistrate was only required to be prima facie satisfied on the basis of the complaint, the police report and the materials before him, and was not to decide whether conviction would ultimately follow.
Conclusion: The Magistrate was competent to add the respondents as accused and issue process against them.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in revision under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could reappraise the merits and interfere with the Magistrate's order issuing process.
Analysis: The revisional power is limited. Once the Magistrate has judicially exercised discretion and found prima facie grounds for proceeding, the High Court cannot substitute its own assessment of the evidence or enter into a detailed scrutiny of the merits to decide whether the accused would ultimately be convicted. Interference is not justified where the Magistrate has acted within jurisdiction and on the basis of prima facie material.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the order issuing process.
Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the Magistrate's order issuing process against the respondents was restored, leaving it open to the accused to seek discharge at the appropriate stage under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate acts on the offence and need only ascertain prima facie grounds against persons appearing to be involved, while the High Court in revision cannot reassess the merits as if conducting a trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
