RAGHUNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order framing charge Under Section 418 IPC against the Applicant. The following charge -sheet had been framed:

(2.) IT is clear from the wordings of the charge that sugar was taken on misrepresentation from the Co -operative Society, Shikohabad for distributing to the persons within the circle of Nyaya Panchayat to whom damage was ultimately caused as it could not obtain sugar. No doubt, under the term of the licence the Applicant might have been bound to distribute sugar to the cardholders for whom it was meant. But the fact remains that so far as the Go -operative Society was concerned, the transaction was complete. No damage was caused to the Society but damage was caused to some of its members. The Go -operative Society is a different entity from some members of that Society. The Co -operative Society thus itself was not cheated. In the case of Hari Sao v. State of Bihar : AIR 1970 SC 843 it was held that though a valuable security (railway receipt) was wrongly obtained from the Station Master on false representation that the bags contained chilies while they only contained chaff, the railway authorities were ultimately not cheated as they did not suffer any damage and that no offence Under Section 420 IPC was made out.

(3.) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the charge Under Section 418 IPC, as framed, by the learned Magistrate is quashed. It shall, however, be open to the prosecution to proceed according to law in case any other offence is made out.