V DHARMA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main ground on which the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, dated 27th July, 1970 made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 9 of 1970 is challenged, is that the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to make an order under section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, without reference to the High Court, as the order of discharge by the Magistrate concerned was made under section. 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The facts leading up to this Criminal Revision case may briefly be stated. A prosecution was laid in C.C. No. 185 of 1969, on the file of the Judicial-cam- First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, against the petitioner and and one M.A. Khaliq, by the Police, Kamareddy, alleging that M.A. Khaliq, was the Secretary of the Co-operative marketting Society, while the petitioner, V. Dharma Reddy, was the Accountant of the said Society and they worked as such from 1st October, 1965 to 31st October, 1968 and 1st July, 1967 to 26th December, 1968 respectively and that, on 6th September, 1967 and 8th September, 1967 the Secretary received an amount of Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 1,500 respectively towards the sale-proceeds of the paddy-mixture of the Society, but only part of the amount was entered in the account books of the Society and a sum of Rs. 1,796-00 was misappropriated by the Secretary and the Accountant. Similar was the allegation in respect of certain other purchases and sales. The charge-sheet was laid under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded ' not guilty'. The learned First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy who tried the case, on a consideration of the material on record, held that no offence was made out against any of the accused and, in that view, passed an order discharging the accused under section 251-A, clause (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by this order, the State went in revision to the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 9 of 1970. The learned Sessions Judge, referring to the audit report and the statement of the Deputy Reg1strar, Co-operative Societies, etc., held that the and respondent as an Accountant had initialled all the entries, and when the entries were initialled by both, there was a prima facie case against both of them. In that view, he allowed the revision petition setting aside the order of discharge and made over the case to the Munsiff Magistrate, Nizamabad for further enquiry. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the said order.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, contended that there was no prima fade case so far as the petitioner (the Accountant) was concerned and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of discharge made by the Magistrate. The second ground urged by him is, that as the order of discharge was made under sectioo 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Sessions Judge was not competent in pass an order under section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, without reference to the High Court.