Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. In this Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Ravi Kant Kapoor, petitioner herein, prayer is to quash the complaint dated 29th of August, 1988 filed by Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Amritsar and aftermath thereof, i.e., summoning order dated 28th of February, 1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, directing the petitioner to face trial under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2. The complaint, subject matter of challenge herein, has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. It has been filed by Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports against Sarvashri Ram Murti Khanna, Gurmukh Singh Sandhu and the petitioner-Ravi Kant Kapoor. The core allegations made by the complainant were that in terms of a policy, reference whereof has been given in the complaint, an application dated 15th of March, 1982 for issuance of Advance Imports Licence for import of Acrylic Fibre accompanied by photostat copy of order of foreign buyer M/s Gillson Import-Export Int. London dated 25th of January, 1982 regarding purchase of ladies and gents cardigans worth Rs. 22,12,500/- was issued in favour of M/s. Ram Murti Raj Kumar and others. The said licence in favour of M/s. Ram Murti Raj Kumar was sent to license vide letter dated 30th of March, 1982. The import license was issued subject to the condition that licensee shall export 22,125 Kg. of Acrylic hosiery worth Rs. 22,12,500/- to the foreign buyer within six months from the date of importation of first consignment against the Advance Import Licence. It was also stipulated that in order to ensure fulfilment of export obligation, the licencee holder before clearance of the first consignment shall furnish bank guarantee. Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 as also 14 which as per the case of the complainant constitute an offence against the petitioner and others read as follows :- "7. That after obtaining the Import Licence Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1) and Shri Gurmukh Singh Sandhu (A-2) approached Shri Ravi Kant Kapoor (A-3) through a Commission Agent Shri Munni Lal Mehra who was known to Shri Gurmukh Singh Sandhu (A-2) and entered into an agreement dated 23.6.82 authorising M/s. Grantex & Co. That after obtaining the Import Licence Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1) and Shri Gurmukh Singh Sandhu (A-2) approached Shri Ravi Kant Kapoor (A-3) through a Commission Agent Shri Munni Lal Mehra who was known to Shri Gurmukh Singh Sandhu (A-2) and entered into an agreement dated 23.6.82 authorising M/s. Grantex & Co. Bombay, to import the material against licence No. P/L/0338913 dated 29.3.82, open the letter of Credit, make remittance for import of goods and also to spin the fibre into yarn. 8. That the material was actually imported by M/s. Grantex & Co. Bombay, on the basis of letter of authority dated 4.8.82 given by the licensee. The goods were imported at Bombay Port and clearance done by M/s Kanaya Singh & Sons, Clearing Agents, Bombay, vide bill of Entry No. 1610 dated 6.10.82 S.S. Mizoram. The delivery of 125 Bales of Imported Acrylic Fibre was received on 6.11.82 by M/s Grantex & Co. Bombay, through the clearing Agents. 9. That Shri Ravi Kapoor (A-3), the Managing Partner of M/s. Grantex & Co., Bombay, has contended that the delivery of the imported material has been given to the licensee at Delhi against proper receipt and payment received from New Bank of India, Mandvi, Bombay whereas the licensee has denied having received the delivery of the material. In any case, the Export Obligation was not fulfilled and the material was disposed of in the open market. 10. That the firm M/s. Ram Murti Raj Kumar, 1734/1 Karmon Deori, Amritsar, was non-existent one and no manufacturing activities regarding manufacturing of garments was ever done at the said address. The premises No. 1734/1 Karmon Deori, Amritsar, were owned by Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1) during the period 1981 to 1985 when it was disposed of. 11. That the premises No. 22, Beatrice Road, Southall, London, shown to be the address of the foreign buyer M/s. P. Gillson, Import-Export London was in occupation of Shri Puran Singh Gill and the firm was formed by the name of P. Gillson Import but no Export business was transacted by it. This order, dated 25.1.1982 etc. was got printed in India by Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1). He denied his signatures on the order dated 25.1.82. 14. This order, dated 25.1.1982 etc. was got printed in India by Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1). He denied his signatures on the order dated 25.1.82. 14. That S/Shri Ram Murti Khanna (A-1), Gurmukh Singh Sandhu (A-2) and Ravi Kant Kapoor (A-3) in connivance with each other fraudulently and dishonestly obtained Advance Import Licence No. P/L/0338913 dated 29.3.82 for Rs. 6,44,375/- for the import of Acrylic Fibre in the name of non-existing firm M/s Ram Murti Raj Kumar, Amritsar, imported the material, disposed it of in the open market and evaded government revenue to the tune of Rs. 15,59,112/- and further made attempt to cover up their deeds by fabrication of documents and manipulation of entries concerning payment. The imported material was misutilised and the export obligation was not fulfilled in contravention of the provisions of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC r/w Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Original documents have been sent to the Handwriting Export for opinion." 3. The matter came up for hearing before Shri R.D. Singla, Special Judge, CBI, Patiala who vide order dated 28th of February, 1989, summoned the petitioner along with two others named above to face trial under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The operative part of the order reads thus :- "I have heard learned P.P. for the complainant and have gone through the allegations in the complaint. The complaint has been filed by Sh. S.P. Chhibber, Dy. Chief Controller Imports & Exports, Amritsar in the discharge of his official duties as a public servant. The complaint is in writing. Since the complainant in the case is a public servant, the examination of the complaint is dispensed with as provided under Section 200 Cr.P.C. From the allegations in the complaint I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds made out for summoning of the accused for offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471-B IPC and Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. All the accused are, therefore, ordered to the summoned for their trial for the above said offence for 9.5.89." 4. All the accused are, therefore, ordered to the summoned for their trial for the above said offence for 9.5.89." 4. Before I might proceed any further in this case, I would like to mention here that on Criminal Misc. filed on behalf of the petitioner, vide orders dated 19th of December, 1997, it was ordered by S.C. Malte, J. (as he then was) that the respondents would keep the records of the case ready for persual of courts, if necessary. Vide another order dated 10th of October, 1997, the same Honble Judge ordered that since the documents were not brought in the Court in pursuance to the order dated 10.10.1997, the case had to be adjourned. The documents are not available despite the orders, referred to above. 5. The twin contentions raised by Mr. Menon, learned counsel who represents the petitioner are that a reading of the complaint and the accompanied documents would not constitute an offence for which the petitioner has since been summoned and that, in any case, the order of summoning dated 28th of February, 1989 has necessarily to be quashed, inasmuch as the said order came to be passed only after reading of the complaint and not the accompanied documents or the statements of the witnesses that might have been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no need to go into the first contention raised by the learned counsel at this stage, particularly when the accompanied documents and the statement of witnesses are not available. The Court also does not feel it necessary at this stage to decide this question for another reason i.e. if the order Annexure P-4 is quashed, necessarily a direction will follow that the concerned Magistrate besides examining the complaint shall also examine all the accompanied documents and the statements of witnesses and then opine as to whether the petitioner and others need to be summoned for the offence levelled against them as per complaint Annexure P-1. Inasmuch as the Court is adopting the second course, it may be repeated that that at stage no occasion arises to comment anything finally on the contention raised by Mr. Menon that the complaint as such may be quashed. Inasmuch as the Court is adopting the second course, it may be repeated that that at stage no occasion arises to comment anything finally on the contention raised by Mr. Menon that the complaint as such may be quashed. It may be added here that once the accompanying documents and statements of witnesses were not available even with the counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be urged that reading of the same would not constitute any offence against the petitioner and further that it is not even the contention of learned counsel that reading of the complaint as such does not disclose any offence. 6. In support of his second contention that it is not only by reading of the complaint alone but accompanying documents and statements of witnesses that summoning order is to be issued, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 761 (SC) : 1998 Cri.L.J. 1, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that "the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary, in support thereof and if that would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing the charge home to the accused." The learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Atullah v. Ram Saran Mahto, 1981 Cri. L.J. 616, wherein it was observed that "when the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case and ordered issue of process against the accused, there was no additional material before him except what was already there when he ordered an investigation under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. Obviously, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without any reference to any further material, took cognizance of the case and ordered the issue of process to the accused merely on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Executive Officer, Samastipur, Municipality. Obviously, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without any reference to any further material, took cognizance of the case and ordered the issue of process to the accused merely on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Executive Officer, Samastipur, Municipality. That he was not right in doing." In Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonhar and another, AIR 1960 S.C. 1113, the Supreme Court held that "it is manifestly clear from the provisions of Section 203 that the judgment which the Magistrate has to form must be based on the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry. The section itself makes that clear and it is not necessary to refer to authorities in support thereof." In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veerana Shivalingappa Knojalgi and others, 1976 Cri. L.J. 1533, the Supreme Court held that "the scope of the inquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited, only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint - (i) on the materials (Emphasis supplied) placed by the complainant before the Court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have." 7. Learned counsel also relies upon Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and others, 1993(3) RCR(Criminal) 545 (SC) : 1992 SCC(Cri) 636 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426. 8. The operation of the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioner and others has since been reproduced above. Reading thereof would leave no one in doubt that the Magistrate went through the allegations made in the complaint alone and was satisfied for the purpose of summoning the petitioner and others on the basis of allegations made therein. This is what is being precisely objected to and has since been adversely commented upon in the judgments referred to above. The contention of the learned counsel that since the Magistrate had not even seen the accompanied documents and the statements of witnesses and, therefore, the order of summoning has to be quashed, has to be accepted. Mr. This is what is being precisely objected to and has since been adversely commented upon in the judgments referred to above. The contention of the learned counsel that since the Magistrate had not even seen the accompanied documents and the statements of witnesses and, therefore, the order of summoning has to be quashed, has to be accepted. Mr. Rajan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, however, in his endeavour to say otherwise relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 833. The facts of the case aforesaid would show that the ground on which the High Court quashed the complaint was a subsequent report of the CBI which had not yet been proved and considered in the background of the allegations made and secondly that some of the parties alleged to be in the conspiracy were not made parties. While taking a view contrary to the one taken by the High Court, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that there were no grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings where on prima facie being satisfied the Magistrate had taken cognizance. It was further observed by the Apex Court that taking all the allegations in complaint to be true, without adding or subtracting anything, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima facie case for trial had been made out and, therefore, the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. In considered view of this Court, reliance on this judgment cannot be placed to negate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As mentioned above, this Court is not going to the question of quashing the complaint itself. No doubt, in case a complaint has to be quashed, finding has necessarily to be given that the reading of the same would not constitute any offence whatsoever. As mentioned above, this Court is not going to the question of quashing the complaint itself. No doubt, in case a complaint has to be quashed, finding has necessarily to be given that the reading of the same would not constitute any offence whatsoever. On the question of complaint, it has already been observed that the learned Magistrate would examine the complaint and the accompanying documents as also the statements of the witnesses before he might make his mind to summon the petitioner and others and if still the petitioner and others have to be summoned, it will be for them to decide whether they would like to ask for the quashing of the complaint on the ground that no case is made out against them even if everything stated in the documents is true. The contention of Mr. Rajan Gupta that the complaint as such cannot be quashed till such time a finding is recorded that no offence is made out after everything stated in the complaint had accompanied documents, thus, need not be gone into at this stage. 9. In view of what has been said above, the summoning order Annexure P-4 dated 28th of February, 1989 is quashed. A direction is issued to be concerned Magistrate to examine the complaint and accompanying documents as also the statements made by the witnesses and if in his opinion a prima facie offence seems to have been committed by the petitioner and others, he may summon them. However, if he is satisfied with regard to non-commission of any offence by the petitioner and others, he would be at liberty to dismiss the complaint. As considerable time has already been lost in proceedings before the trial Court and in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the concerned Magistrate would consider this matter as expeditiously as possible and pass the order summoning the petitioner and others or otherwise within three months from the date he receives the copy of this order. 10. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is accepted to the limited extent as fully detailed above. Petition partly allowed.