ALAGIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Alagiri and Arunachalam, who are accused 1 and 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai, in C.C. 573 of 1992, facing the charges for the offence under Ss. 409 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code respectively have come forward with this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Crl. M.P. No. 1405 of 1993 on 1-6-1993 declining to discharge the accused for want of adequate materials and evidence for the trial.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner's wife Lakshmi and witness Annamalai, who is the complainant, entered into a partnership agreement and commenced a partnership business under the name and style of Royal Video House during 1983 at S. S. Colony, Madurai and they carried on the business in Video Cassettes and V.C.R. for hire and sale and during 1988 the first petitioner also entered into the partnership business directly and was carrying on the said trade. It was also alleged that during 1990 the first petitioner herein, being a partner of the said business but however without the knowledge and consent of the witness Annamalai, who is also a partner had taken away 2016 Video cassettes and four V.C.Rs. and thereby caused loss to the complainant Annamalai to the extent of Rs. 4,50,360/- and that the second petitioner, who was running a business under the name and style of Star Video near the by-pass road, Madurai, aided in secreting the National V.C.R. taken by the first petitioner in his business premises and thus the first petitioner and the second petitioner have committed the offences under S. 409 and 414, IPC respectively.

(3.) On taking the cognizance of the offences above referred on the basis of the report under S. 173, Cr. P.C. placed by the respondent herein, in Thirdeernagar P.S. Cr. No. 2448 of 1991, process has been issued to both the accused and on their appearance, copies of all the records were furnished to them and on a perusal it was found that there was no scope for framing the charges and continue the proceedings and therefore, a petition under S. 239. Cr. P.C. was filed by and on behalf of the petitioners herein praying for their total discharge. By hearing the respective parties, on perusal of the records, learned Judicial Magistrate has declined to accept their plea and consequently dismissed the petition by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved at this, petitioners have come forward with this revision as noted supra.