The companyplaint set out the relevant facts in great detail and made specific allegations to the effect that petitioners had entered into a companyspiracy to defraud him and for that purpose Shri Pawan Kumar, arrayed as accused No.4 in the companyplaint, had played an active role apart from fabricating a Board resolution when numbersuch resolution had, in fact, been passed.
Consequently, on the date the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took companynizance of the offence alleged against the accused persons there was numbercomplaint other than the one pending before the said Court.
On receipt of the companyplaint the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded prima facie satisfaction about the companymission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, read with Section 120B of IPC, took companynizance and directed issuance of process against the accused persons.
The Court on that premise companycluded that numberfraud or cheating was made out against the accused persons.
The revision petitions were eventually allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by his order dated 13th August, 2008 and the summoning order set aside.
The Additional Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that although the allegations regarding fabrication of a resolution, taken at their face value, made out a prima facie case of fraud against the accused persons yet the minutes of a subsequent meeting allegedly held on 19th July, 2005, a photocopy of which was filed along with Criminal Revision No.460/2007 ratified the resolution allegedly passed on 28th June, 2005.
Aggrieved by the said order, Revision Petitions No.449, 460, 853 of 2007 were filed by the accused persons before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, challenging the order taking companynizance and the maintainability of the companyplaint on several grounds.
As regards the alleged number observance of the provisions of Section 202 Cr.
P.C. the High Court came to the companyclusion that the provision of Section 202 Cr.
P.C. had been companyplied with by the Magistrate while taking companynizance and issuing process.
That document was number available before the Addl.
Firstly, this document was produced for the first time before the Addl.
On the question of ratification of the resolution allegedly passed on 28th June, 2005, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge was number justified in entertaining a photocopy of the document relied upon by the accused at the revisional stage, placing implicit reliance upon the same and interfering with the on going proceedings before the Magistrate.
Sessions Judge in the revision application.
Respondent No.1, Rajeev Sawhney filed Criminal Complaint No.20/SW/2007 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of IPC by the petitioners.
S. THAKUR, J. These Special Leave Petitions arise out of an order dated 6th May, 2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.441 of 2008 whereby the High Court has set aside order dated 13th August, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Revision Applications No.449, 460 and 853 of 2007 and restored that made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai taking companynizance of offences allegedly companymitted by the petitioners.
