- (1.) R. K. Rathi, J. This is revision under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. against the order, dated 7-8-1997 passed in Criminal Revision No. 110 of 1996 by the VI Addi tional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri R. B. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. M. Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. The Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint for offences under Section 120-B, 416, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 LEG against the applicants, in which it was al leged that the petitioner Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava is the Bank Manager, who sanc tioned loan to the petitioner Ashok Kumar for purchase of the tractor. That (hey col luded and the land of the Opposite Party No. 2 was morgaged for that loan.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate con sidered the facts and also called for the petitioners and considered their replies and dismissed the complaint under Sec tion 203 Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by it the Op posite Party No. 2 preferred the above revision, which have been allowed. The above facts disclosed the com mission of cognizable offence. I therefore, do not find any illegality in the aforesaid im pugned order of the learned Additional Ses sions Judge, Falehpur. However, it is pointed oat that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur has directed for summoning the accused under Section 204 Cr. RG He could not have summoned the accused under the aforesaid Section in exercise of jurisdic tion under Sections 397/401 Cr. P. C. He could have only issued proper direction. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur dated 7-8-97 is modified to the ex tent that the learned Magistrate will pass the summoning order under Section 204 Cr. PC in the light of the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.;