(1.) THIS is a revision application by the accused against the framing of the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola.
(2.) THE facts of this case are not being disputed for the purpose of this revision application. The complainant Madanlal was a servant in the shop of the accused Seth Deochaud. According to the complainant, his services were abruptly terminated by the accused on or about October 19, 1965. The accused called the complainant twice or thrice for the purpose of receiving his salary after making his accounts. The complainant claimed, in addition to salaries, two amounts of deposits kept by him, with the accused. The first item was of Rs. 2,000 deposited on July 30, 1965. The second item was of Us. 850 deposited on September 11, 1965. The terms of the deposit alleged in the written complaint, as well as the oral evidence, are that the deposit was not to carry any specific interest, but the accused agreed to give the same interest which he was paying to other depositors. The complainant alleges in an uncertain manner that the interest was to be anything from eight annas to ten annas per cent.
(3.) MR . Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the accused -petitioner, argues that, at this stage, all that the complainant says may be accepted as prima facie true. The only question that is being raised is that even after accepting all that the complainant said as true, does it disclose a criminal offence and would all that the complainant says end in conviction, if unrebutted? According to Mr. Manohar, the ingredients of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code are not present at all in this case even if the entire testimony of the complainant is to be accepted without any challenge. The only question that falls for consideration in this revision application, therefore, is whether, on the evidence that is placed on record of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, a charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code should be framed or not.