HUKAMICHAND DEVKISAN Vs. RATANLAL RUPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directred against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge Belguam, reversing on revision tje order of discharge made by the Judicial Magistratrate. First Class of that district in a case under S.420 of the IPC and directing that a charge be framed under that count against the accused. The prosecution case was that the accused No.1 (A.1), the accused No 2(A..2) and the accused No. 3(A.3)along with the accused No.4 (A 4) entered into a joint business of purchasing and selling sarees, although the said business was to exist in the account books only in the name of of A.4. Since the complainant was known to A.1 to A.3 he believed their representation and supplied sarees worth more than Rs. 4000 to A.1 to A.4. The katha was opened in the name of A 4. It was further stated that on 13-2-1974, when the complainant approached A.1 to A 4 to make some payment Rs.500 was paid in cash and two post dated cheques were got issued by A.1 to A.3 which were subsequently dishonoured. The said cheques were signed by A.4. because the business was in his name. Thereafter on 10-3-1974, the complainant again approached the accused who assured him that the balance of the amount would be paid. Finally, on 16-4-1974, the complainant again approached A1 to A3. but the latter replied that they were not responsible and that the complainmant was at liberty to proceed against them. On theese allegations made in the private complaint submitted to the Magistrate the accused was said to have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC.

(2.) The learned Magistrate issued process sgainst Al to A3. The case against A.4 is stated to be split up and as such he may be proceeded against in another proceeding. After summoning the accused, since it was a complainant's case, under S.244 of the Crl PC the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was recorded. As many as eight witnesses were produced. The learned Magistrate after considering the statements as well as the case made out in the complaint, was of the opinion that no case against the accused was made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. Accordingly, he discharged A1 to A3 under Sec.245 of the Code. Against that order of discharge the complainant filed a revision under Sections 397 and 398 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, considered that the order of discharge was improper and he passed the impugned order directing the Magistrate to frame a charge under Section 420 of the IPC. Being agggrieved by that order of the learned Sessions Judge, A1 to A3 have come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued in the foremost that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Pakalapali Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu, AIR 1975 SC. 1854, the power of a Sessions Judge to interfere with the order of discharge was very much restricted.