Summoning order under criminal procedure must rest on admissible prima facie material; hearsay alone cannot sustain process.

A revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC lies against an order taking cognizance and issuing process because such a summoning order is not interlocutory, so the maintainability objection failed. On merits, cognizance and process could not stand where the record disclosed no prima facie admissible material linking the accused to the alleged forgery or conspiracy, and the case rested substantially on hearsay. The Magistrate was required to apply judicial mind to material showing the essential ingredients of the offence, and the hearsay foundation here could not establish mens rea or culpable involvement. The order issuing process was therefore set aside and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable against the order taking cognizance and issuing process; (ii) whether the order taking cognizance and issuing process was sustainable when the record disclosed no prima facie admissible material against the petitioner and the case rested essentially on hearsay.

Issue (i): whether a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable against the order taking cognizance and issuing process

Analysis: An order summoning an accused under Sections 200 to 204 of the Code is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to revisional scrutiny. The availability of revisional jurisdiction is not displaced merely because inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 may also be invoked in appropriate cases. The preliminary objection to maintainability therefore could not succeed.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the order taking cognizance and issuing process was sustainable when the record disclosed no prima facie admissible material against the petitioner and the case rested essentially on hearsay

Analysis: At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind and ascertain whether the materials disclose a prima facie case. The material against the petitioner consisted substantially of a hearsay statement that did not show any direct or indirect role in forging bills of entry, submitting forged documents, arranging hawala transactions, dealing with bank officials, or otherwise participating in the alleged conspiracy. The other statements and banking entries also did not furnish tangible admissible material showing mens rea or culpable knowledge. Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was found inapplicable on the facts, and the hearsay foundation could not sustain criminal process.

Conclusion: The cognizance order and issuance of process were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was found to have been roped in without prima facie admissible evidence, and the criminal process against him was quashed to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: An order summoning an accused must rest on a prima facie application of mind to admissible material showing the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; where the foundation is only hearsay and no tangible material links the accused to the crime, revisional interference is warranted.

---