P. N. Shinghal, J. - (1.) This appeal of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 22, 1975 dismissing her application for revision of the order of the additional Sessions Judge of Delhi dated August 29, 1974, confirming the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi dated August 8, 1974. The facts giving rise to the appeal are quite simple and may be shortly stated.
(2.) A complaint was filed by respondent N. L. Gupta on behalf of Smt. Patashi Devi for the commission of offences under Sections 181, 182, 193, 197, 199, 200, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code by Nand Kishore, Ghanshyam Das and Sanwar Mal. It was alleged that Smt. Patashi Devi had one-fifth share in the firm of M/s. Gupta Electric and Machinery Stores of which Smt.Parmeshwari Devi (the present appellant), Smt. Dropadi Devi and Madan Lal Gupta were the other Partners. According to the complaint the Business of the firm was mainly looked after by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi's husband Mohan Lal and accused No. 1 who was her brother, Smt. Patashi Devi and two other partners "retired" from the business on April 1, 1968 without settling the accounts. Smt. Patashi Devi asked Mohan Lal Gupta for accounts, but he fell ill and died without rendering accounts. Accused No. 2 filed an attested copy of a deed of dissolution alleged to be signed by Smt. Patashi Devi, in the office of the Registrar of Firms on November 14, 1968, along with an intimation of the dissolution of the firm which also purported to be signed by her.
(3.) The complainant filed an application under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for a direction to the accused to file the original deed of dissolution. The accused however stated in the court that they were employees of the firm and the document was not in their possession. The complainant then made another application on March 28, 1974 under Sec. 94 with a prayer that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi may be directed to produce the document. The court made an order on March 28. 1974 summoning Smt. Parmeshwari Devi with the document. She stated in her reply that she did not know anything about the document and that after her husband's death the complainant had taken away all the records of the firm. She stated further that she was a pardanashin lady living in Calcutta and need not be summoned in the court. The Metropolitan Magistrate there upon made order dated August 8, 1974 as follows - "In my view when a person is summoned to attend the Court it is desirable that such summoned person attends and made statement on oath that he is not in the possession of the documents summoned, so that the court may take further steps to secure the production of the documents envisaged under Section 96 Cr. P. C. Merely sending a reply through an advocate that the document is not in his possession is not sufficient compliance of the order. The request of the Ld. counsel for Parmeshwari Devi that a commission may be issued for recording the statement of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi cannot be granted as the case is already getting old and issuance of a commission would mean undesirable delay of the case. The counsel for Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Shri C. L. Mahl is now requested to intimate Smt. Parmeshwari Devi forthwith to attend this Court and produce the document if in her possession on 30th August, 1974. The Ld. counsel for Parmeshwari Devi has also stated that Smt. Parmeshwari Devi is prepared to file an affidavit even to say that she is not in the possession of the documents summoned but in my view this also does not serve the purpose as calling of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi in the court and recording her statement on an oath will give a chance to the court to put her a few questions for satisfying itself regarding the whereabouts of the document in question." As has been stated, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi's applications for revision of this order have been dismissed by the additional Sessions Judge and the High Court and this is how she has come in appeal to this Court.;