There remains no doubt about the proposition that for the purpose of issuance of process to the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C, evidence sufficient to establish guilt of the accused is not required, the learned Court is desired by Law only to look for the availability of sufficient ground to proceed further with the complaint that requires tentative assessment of the evidence at hand till then only and sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence available for the issuance of process is for the Court seized with the matter to decide. The Court even is not required to state detailed reasons in support of its order. Perusal of the order, passed by the learned Revisional Court impugned through this petition reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has travelled beyond his limit while considering the earlier registration of an F.I.R No. 90/2018 at the instance of the accused/respondent No.2 that was not the part of the record before the learned summoning court when the order under revision was passed. The appropriate course for the accused/respondents in the situation was to approach the learned trial Court by moving application under section 249-A Cr.P.C if they consider that in view of the facts with them, there was no chance of their conviction and that further proceedings in the trial would be a futile exercise. It is also relevant to mention here that the summoning order passed under section 204 Cr.P.C is not a judgment or final order as contemplated by section 369 Cr.P.C and the same can be reconsidered, revisited or recalled at any stage. Similarly, the earned revisional court while determining the propriety or legality of the subject summoning order could only look into the material or evidence available to the learned court below when the order was passed and not beyond.
Crl. Misc.43746/23
Muhammad Akbar Ali Vs Addl. Sessions Judge Zafarwal etc.
Mr. Justice Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi
01-12-2023
Signed on 12.12.2023.
2023 LHC 6412
0 Comments