(1.) This criminal revision arises out of a case of alleged cheating. Rattu Ram filed a complaint against two accused, Rajendra Tewari and Sheo Kumar Pandey on these allegations.
(2.) The complainant is a member of a co operative society. Accused No. 1 was the sarpanch of the society; and accused No. 2 was the supervisor of the society. The two accused promised to secure for the complainant a loan from the co-operative society for a sum of Rs. 100/- . The complainant's signature was obtained suggesting that be had received the sum of Rs. 100/- . An appropriate entry was made in the complainant's passbook. The sum of Rs. 100/- was obtained by the two accused, but was never paid to the complainant. The complainant protested to the departmental authorities, but got no redress. Rattu Ram, therefore, filed al complaint in Court in September, 1961. That complaint was dismissed on 19-3-1962 on the ground that the complainant was absent. The same day (19-3-1962) Rattu Ram filed another complaint. The second complaint was dealt with by another Magistrate. He took the view that the second complaint was barred Under Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused were, therefore, discharged on 30-4-1963. Against that order, a revision was filed by Rattu Ram complainant. The revision was dismissed by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 22-2-65. The present revision by Rattu Ram to this Court is directed against the order dated 22-2-1965 dismissing the complainant's revision.
(3.) It will be seen that the trial Court did not dispose of the complainant's case on merits. The trial Court held that the second complaint was barred Under Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure. This view has been challenged on behalf of the complainant. The trial Court took the view that the first complaint was dismissed Under Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure. That dismissal had the effect of acquittal. In view of the acquittal upon the first complaint, the second complaint is barred.