GURUMUKHDAS SEUMAL NANGRANI Vs. KANTILAL LALJI CHHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition is the offshoot of the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 5 at Dadar, pursuant to the complaint filed by the present petitioner against respondent No. 1. It is unnecessary to set out in details the grievance of the petitioner in his complaint. It is enough to state the nature of his complaint only to that extent to which it would be necessary to appreciate his grievance mouthed by the present writ petition.

(2.) The complaint has been filed by the petitioner against the accused contending that he had placed an order with respondent No. 1, who is a printer, for printing certain books which were to be published by the petitioner. For that purpose, certain printing materials were entrusted to respondent No. 1 (who will be referred hereafter as the accused). It is also his contention that certain amount belonging to the petitioner (who will be referred to hereafter as the complainant) was already lying with the accused. According to the complainant, therefore, there was a deposit of the said amount and of the said printing material with the accused. The accused was to print the material according to the order and the books were to be delivered to the complainant within the stipulated period. The grievance of the complainant has been that the accused did not carry out the orders but, instead, purported to convert the printing material and the amount lying with him to his own use. The complaint was, therefore, filed by the complainant on 21st April, 1977 against the accused making grievance of the offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate ordered issuance of process. However, before framing the charge he perused the evidence that was sought to be produced by the complainant at that stage and not being satisfied about the complainants contention he passed an order of discharge in favour of the accused. Against that order, a revision application was filed by the complainant to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court set aside the order of discharge and sent back the matter to the learned Magistrate for decision according to law. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused and the trial proceeded thereafter.

(3.) Even before the order of discharge an application had been made by the complainant for seizure of the goods lying in the premises of the accused which goods were claimed by the complainant to be of his ownership. An order of seizure was accordingly passed by the learned Magistrate and certain goods, consisting of paper and other printing materials etc., were seized by the police. They were brought to the Court. The complainant thereafter made an application to the Court for return of the said goods to him, contending that the property in the said goods vested in himself. Upon this application, the learned magistrate passed the following order on 6-5-1977.