BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Bhajan Lal praying that an order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge of Agra on the 19th of April, 1955, directing the commitment of the applicant to the Court of Sessions for trial be quashed and the applicant be discharged.

(2.) A complaint was made by Rajendra Kumar Jain under Secs. 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the I. P. C. against the applicant and six others. It was alleged that the complainant was a Director of the Vir Industries, Delhi, which owns the Bimal Glass Works, Firozabad that Chhadami Lal accused was previously the sole proprietor of these Glass Works; that in September, 1950, the Vir Industries proposed to purchase the Bimal Class Works for a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-; that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in advance; that since the Bimal Glass Works was not in working order, it was agreed that it will be run by the accused on behalf of the Vir Industries, that the Vir Industries advanced a sum of Rs. 81,000/- for expenses, that the accused ran the Glass Works from the 1st of December, 1950, to the 1st of May, 1951, that the charge of the Bimal Glass Works was finally handed over to Vir Industries on 1st May, 1951; that during the time the accused persons ran the Factory, namely, from 1st December, 1950 to 1st May, 1951, the accused misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14,776/4/6; that Chhadami Lal Jain accused No. 1 with the help of the other accused got false accounts prepared and committed forgeries in the account-books; of the Factory and that, therefore, the accused persons were punishable under the sections stated above.

(3.) In support of the complaint the complainant examined a number of winesses and relied upon the entries in the books of account. The learned Magistrate found that there was a prima facie case under Secs. 409, 465, 471 and 477A against Chhadami Lal, Ram Sarup Gupta, Pyare Lal, and Lal Bihari; but there was no evidence whatsoever against Bhajan Lal, Chandrabhan and Master Sunehri Lal. He accordingly committed the first four to the Court of Sessions for trial under the sections aforesaid, and he discharged the other three accused. The learned first Additional Sessions Judge, on going through the commitment order of the case, was of the opinion that the Magistrate was not right in discharging Bhajan Lal. He observed that since the complainant had clearly stated in the complaint that Chhadami Lal in conspiracy and in collusion with the remaining accused including Bhajan Lal misappropriated a certain amount and committed certain forgeries, and since Bhajan Lal was admittedly employed in the Bimal Glass Works, the Magistrate was not right in discharging Bhajan Lal, the more so because "for a fair trial of this case Bhajan Lal should also be in the array of accused along with his master Sri Chhadami Lal."