M.C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 9th March, 1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja whereby he dismissed under Section 203 Criminal Procedure Code, a complaint filed by the revisionist against the bank officials for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 409 Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the bank officials embezzled certain money belonging to the bank by showing the revisionist and his brother as guarantor and witnesses for a loan. After considering the evidence led under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate found no case for proceeding against the accused was made out and, therefore dismissed the complaint.
(3.) Learned Counsel contended that the revisionist had examined himself and same witness under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, the Magistrate should have summoned the accused. I have gone through the judgment passed by the Court below, it is evident that the original documents which were the basis of the allegation against the accused were not summoned and no evidence was led to the effect that they were forged or fabricated. The revisionist declined to give his specimen writing and signatures. In my view the Court below was right in holding that no ground for proceeding against the accused for the alleged offences was made out. No case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revisions Petition is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.;