K C RAVISHANKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge Metropolitan area Bangalore reversing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (II Court), Bangalore discharging the accused K.C.Ravishankar and K.C.Ayya for offences under S.420 r.w. S.34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief was that about 2 years back, the two accused persons came with the criminal intention and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with his property viz, land of the value of Rs.98,950 and in that connection the first accused issued three cheques of the value of Rs. 20,000, 13,000 and 58,920 which were subsequently dishonoured. Similarly, the second accused issued two cheques of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 ana the same were also dishonoured. It was stated that A-1 had approached the husband of the complainant and proposed that he would sell 1-1 2 acres of his land at Sy.No.126 of Kathriguppe village, Bangalore South for a sum of Rs. 40,000. In fact, the complainant was made to give a receipt of Rs. 20,000 to Accused No.1 although according to her she had not received any amount. Thereafter, on 10-9-1971 a draft sale deed was prepared which was subsequently registered. In this manner the ownership of the land was transferred to A-1. The cheques were dishonoured on 13-9-1971 and 23-9-1971. A-1 sold this land to a Housing Co-operative Society on 20-9-1971 and obtained Rs. One lakh and odd from them. The complainant's case proceeded, that the two accused did pay Rs. 18,000 to the complainant on one date and thereafter on 1-6-1972 they paid Rs. 1,000 more. As per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, a sum of Rs. 22,000 is still due and payable. It is further stated that on 15-11-1971 some other sale transaction was conduced in favour of these two accused by the very same complainant and 3 acres 11 guntas of land was sold to them. After waiting for about 2 years the complainant brought the case to the Court of the Magistrate. Thereafter investigation followed under S.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. On these allegations made in the complaint a charge sheet was submitted under Sec.420 of the IPC.

(3.) The learned Magistrate considered the case in all its relevant aspects and thought that the charge was ground-less for the offence under S.420 Of the I.P.Code and accordingly the two accused persons were discharged. Against that order, a revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and he reversed the order of the learned Magistrate as according to him a prima facie case was made out against the two accused and as such he has directed tha Magistrate to frame the charge under S.420 of the I.P.Code. The present revision is filed by the two accused persons against that order of the learned Sessions Judge.