LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. N. Misra, J. This is an application in revision by Lal Chand and Raj Kumar against the order dated January 6, 1981 by Sri B. L. Sachdeva, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Case No. 160 of 1978, in which he discharged the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in this case before him under Section 406 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I. P. C. ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case was that Khairati Lal, Trilok Singh and Kashmir Singh had a partnership firm in the name of Cum Nanak Chit Fund and Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Firm ). The registered office of the Firm was in Guru Bagh Luxa, Varanasi and its branch office was at Resham Katra, Varanasi. The Firm made 300 members, who contributed rupees one hundred each every month for fifty months. On 22nd of every month a draw was held and the name of the member, whose name was drawn, got a reward of Rs. 5,000|- and he was not required to make any further monthly deposit after that and those whose names were not drawn were returned the amount of money deposited along with Rs. 300/ -. On July 6, 1977 Khairati Lal died in Delhi. After that this Firm was dissolved and no further draws were held. It was alleged that the opposite parties 2 and 3 the other two partners of this Firm, did not deposit the money received by them in the Bank did not give any loan and when Lal Chand and Raj Kumar applicants went to Khairati Lal to get the money deposited by them, he did not give them any money and challenged them to do whatever they wanted. It was alleged that the opposite parties 2 and 3 had misappropriated rupees four or five lacs like this. In the case against them under Section 406 read with Section 420 of the I. P. C. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharged those opposite parties, hence this revision.

(3.) IN his order the learned Magistrate merely said that he had seen all the evidence and no case was made out under Section 406 read with Section 420 of the I. P. C. and, therefore, he was discharging the accused, but this he could not do.