MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. MAHTAB SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order of the learned Temporary, Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah, whereby he rejected the Applicant's revision filed against the order of a learned First Class Magistrate of that place, summoning the Applicant as an accused, in case No. 414 of P.S. Awargarh, Under Sec. 190(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) It appears that Sri Mehtab Singh, Principal of the Jai Kalyan Junior High School, Sikrari, Lalpur, filed a complaint Under Sec. 406/408 IPC against Sri Turshan Pal Singh, the Manager of that School. The complaint was in respect of various items of moneys including an item of Rs. 2500/ -. After necessary investigation Sri Turshan Pal Singh was charge -sheeted under those Ss. and sent up for trial to the court of Sri B.D. Dubey, Magistrate 1st class, Etah. One of the pleas, taken by Sri Turshan Pal Singh in his statement Under Sec. 342 Code of Criminal Procedure was that he paid the said sum of Rs. 2500/ - to the Applicant, who gave him a receipt for the same. Thereupon Sri Mehtab Singh moved the application, Ext. 56 -Kha, praying that as, in view of the aforesaid plea, the offence in regard to the said sum was committed either by Sri Turshan Pal Singh or the Applicant - -though the latter denied the receipt of that amount and has having executed a receipt for it - -the disputed signature on the alleged receipt might be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with the Applicant's admitted signature. The prayer was allowed and the expert's report prima facie went against the Applicant but no attempt was made to get it proved. However, on the basis of that report, Sri Mehtab Singh moved the application, 69 -Kha, praying that Sri Mahipal Singh might also be summoned as a co -accused in the case, Under Sec. 190(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate acceded to that prayer and when the revision filed against his order in the court of Sessions Judge failed the present revision was preferred to this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the Applicant the main contention urged in support of this revision was that as there was no legal evidence against the Applicant, the learned Magistrate was in error in summoning him as a co accused in the case against Sri Turshan Pal Singh. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I an satisfied that this contention is well -founded.