KACHRULAL Vs. P H MAWLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three Revisions which have been filed by the complainant against the order of the Magistrate refusing to frame a charge and discharging the accused. Two Revisions have been filed in the cases against Mawle of cheating and criminal breach, of trust and of forgery and another Revision has been filed in the case against Ramkishan. The Revision Petitioner in all these cases is one Kachrulal and all the offences are said to have been committed in connection with a motor lorry which belonged to the complainant Kachrulal. The complainant alleged that his motor lorry was sent to Hyderabad from Lathur for renewal of the licence and was pledged with the accused, Mawle, by his servants, Ramkishen and Khajamean dishonestly. He further stated that he protested against this by sending his men. The complainant stated that very soon the accused Mawle with whom the motor lorry was pledged got a document from his servants purporting to be executed by the complainant as having sold the lorry to him. The complaint further stated that Mawle also filed an application purporting to be on behalf of the complainant, to the Commissioner of Police, requesting that the lorry be registered in Mawle's name. The case of the complainant was that both the documents relating to the sale of the lorry and the application to the Commissioner of Police do not contain his signature and they are both forged.

(2.) SOME dates would be relevant to understand the course of events in this case. It is stated by the complainant that he received a letter on the 12th of Bahman 1357 Fasli from one Pundlik who purported to write the same on behalf of Mawle, the accused, stating that the complainant's servants Ramkishen and Khajamian had obtained a sum of Rs. 1,200/- from Mawle and pledged the motor lorry with Mawle and therein it was stated that the amount might be repaid and the lorry redeemed.

(3.) THIS complaint was on a charge of forgery and also under Section 400, Hyd. Penal Code : 471 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, knowing a document to be forged and using it dishonestly. After recording the evidence tendered on behalf of the complainant the lower Court came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie proof for framing a charge against Mawle under Sections 394 (463, I. P. C.) and 400 (471, I. P. C.) and also for cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is against these orders that two Revisions have been riled by the complainant in this Court. The complaint against Ramkishen also was dismissed and the accused was discharged. A Revision has been filed against that order.