Court sets aside order lacking evidence, emphasizes need for admissible proof in criminal cases. Bail bond canceled.

The court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the order dated 15-11-2014, as it lacked sufficient prima facie evidence and relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence. The court emphasized the importance of tangible and admissible evidence in criminal proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice. The bail bond of the petitioner was canceled, and the request for a stay of judgment was denied.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Revision Application.
2. Validity of the order taking cognizance and issuing process.
3. Applicability of hearsay evidence and the rule of res gestae.
4. Existence of prima facie material against the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Revision Application:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Revision Application under Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC, suggesting that the petitioner should have invoked Section 482 of CrPC. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, (2013) 15 SCC 624, which clarified that an order issuing summons under Sections 200 to 204 CrPC is intermediatory or quasi-final, and thus, revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is available. The court concluded that the preliminary objection lacked merit and the petitioner rightly invoked Section 397 read with 401 of CrPC.

2. Validity of the Order Taking Cognizance and Issuing Process:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 15-11-2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, for taking cognizance and issuing process under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and mechanical, lacking prima facie evidence. The court examined whether the Magistrate applied judicial mind to the facts and materials before issuing the process. The court referenced judgments like Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, emphasizing that summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring careful scrutiny of evidence. The court found that the Magistrate's order did not reflect due application of mind and was issued mechanically.

3. Applicability of Hearsay Evidence and the Rule of Res Gestae:
The court evaluated the admissibility of hearsay evidence, particularly the statement dated 1-8-2014 of Shri Prafulbhai Mohanbhai Patel. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Bhairon Singh v. State of M.P., (2009) 13 SCC 80, which elaborated on the rule of res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the statement of Shri Prafulbhai Patel did not meet the criteria for admissibility under the rule of res gestae, as it was neither contemporaneous nor directly connected to the alleged offences. The court concluded that the statement was inadmissible hearsay evidence.

4. Existence of Prima Facie Material Against the Petitioner:
The court scrutinized the charge sheets and supplementary charge sheets to determine if there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner was initially shown only as a "suspect" and was later added as an accused without any new incriminating evidence. The court found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offences of forgery, cheating, conspiracy, or hawala transactions. The court emphasized that mere receipt of amounts through banking channels did not constitute sufficient grounds for trial. The court concluded that there was no prima facie material against the petitioner to justify the issuance of process.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 15-11-2014 in Case No. 62851 of 2014 qua the petitioner. The court held that the order was issued mechanically without sufficient prima facie evidence, and the hearsay evidence relied upon was inadmissible. The court emphasized the importance of preventing miscarriage of justice and ensuring that criminal proceedings are based on tangible and admissible evidence. The bail bond of the petitioner was ordered to stand cancelled. The request for a stay of the judgment was rejected.

---