MOLVI MOHAMMAD USMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order summoning the applicant to answer the charge under Section 409, I. P. C. In the complaint it was alleged that Molvi Mohd. Usman, Chairman Municipal Board, Deoband purported to sanction a loan of 162 bags of cement to the Cane Development Union without the previous sanction of the Municipal Board whereas in fact no bags of cement had been transferred by the Municipal Board to the said Union and that there was no entry in the stock register of the Board with respect to the said loan. At the instance of one Satya Prakash Qupta, the Collector of Saharanpur ordered an enquiry into the matter and a sub-inspector of police checked the stocks of cement and relevant registers of the Board on 8-3-1965. He found that no cement had been given by way of loan to the Cane Society and that there was no entry in the registers of the Board in regard to the said loan. On the lame day he also checked the stock of the Cane Development Union and its registers and found that there were 961 bags of cement in its possession on 27-3-1966, when the alleged loan was shown to have been made. On the basis of the report submitted by the sub-Inspector a complaint was filed against the present applicant and certain others under Section 409, I. P. C.

(2.) THE Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and examined the complainant under Section 200, Cri. P. C. On a consideration of the facts and the evidence he was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for issue of process for the appearance of the accused.

(3.) THE allegations made in the complaint go to show that there was a conspiracy between the applicant and the two others to commit criminal breach of trust and that in furtherance of that conspiracy the Chairman sanctioned a loan of 160 bags of cement to the Cane Society which never received nor required them. Whether these allegations are true or not is a matter which will come to be decided after the entire evidence has been gone into. At this stage I am not prepared to hold that the allegations made in the complaint which are supported by the statement of the complainant on oath are not sufficient evidence to justify the summoning of the accused before the Court. For the reasons I see no force in this application in revision which is accordingly rejected.