CHANDRAPRAKASH TULSIDAS PARIKH Vs. MULCHAND BAHADURMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On October 3, 1977, the petitioner filed a complaint application before the Additional Commissioner of Police, General Branch C. I. D., Bombay, alleging that the respondent No. 1 Mulchand B. Jain and the owner of the Transport Company M/s. Seems Roadways, or their driver, had in furtherance of their common intention cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 77368/- and had thus committed offence under section 420 read with section 34 I. P. C. He, therefore, requested that the matter may be investigated and dealt with according to law.

(2.) On October 25. 1977, the Inspector of Police, C, B., C. I. D, Bombay, approached the Metropolitan Magistrate for a non bailable warrant being issued against the respondent No. 1 to enable them to execute the same in the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jodhpur In this application, it was pointed out that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the C. I. D. against the respondent No. 1 who was a resident of Jodhpur, a case under section 420 I. P. C. was registered against him under CR.No, 161/1977 and was under investigation. & the respondent No. 1 was also wanted in that connection.

(3.) The brief facts which were stated in the application to the Metro politan Magistrate were that on September 24, 1977, the respondent No. 1 approached the complainant and represented to him that he was a consultant executive of some firms in Jodhpur and showed interest to purchase moulding powder. Believing in his representation, the complainant parted with the goods worth Rs. 77368/-to the respondent No. 1 on September 24, 1977. At that time, the respondent No. 1 promised to issue a draft against the delivery of the goods next day. The respondent No. 1 accordingly took the delivery and ordered the same to be transported to Jodhpur. However, instead of sending the goods to Jodhpur, he sold 174 bags out of 264 bags to a party in Bombay, and after thus disposing of the goods, viz , 174 bags of moulding powder, the respondent No. 1 escaped from Bombay without makihg any payment and was absconding. It was further stated in their applicatien to the Magistrate by the C. I. D that basides the above case of cheating, there were also other cases where the respondent No. 1 had duped various other businessmen from Bombay as well as from Jodhpur and was wanted by the police. The learned Magistrate granted the request of the Inspector of Police & issued a non bailable warrant.