R M D CHAMARBAUGWALLA Vs. M RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, who set aside an order of discharge under Section 253 of the Cr.P.C. These proceedings arise out of a complaint for cheating filed by the respondent before the District Magistrate of Visakhapatnam. The complainant who is an Ayurvedic doctor practising at Visakhapatnam, appears to have been dabbling in crossword puzzle competitions. The organisers of R.M.D.C. Crossword puzzle competition advertised a competition No. 258 offering prizes. This concern has a branch office at Visakhapatnam and there is also a collection' agent, who is empowered to collect solutions for being dispatched to the Head Office at Bangalore. The case of the complainant is that he got up a correct solution of the puzzle but that he could riot send the form before the last date fixed for sending the coupons of solutions viz. 8th December, 1954. He said that he learnt on he 10th of Dec. 1954 from the collector of coupons at Visakhapatnam who is the third accused in the case that the last date for sending the coupons had been extended form the 8th Dec to the 10th December. The complainant stated that finding that there was still time to send the coupon, he brought out the coupon already filled by him made out a fair copy of it and handed over the same with Rs. 2/- the entry fees to the collector of coupons and obtained a receipt from him. The allegation of the complainant is that the 3rd accused took away the entry form to the local branch of this company at Visakhapatanam. The Manager of the local branch is the 2nd accused in the case.

(2.) On the 12th December 1954 the "all correct solution" was published on the notice board of the branch office at Visakhapatnam. The case of the complainant is that the solution published tallied with the solution sent by him. He further says that the 2nd accused and the 3rd accused also congratulated him that he got an all correct solution. The complainant further stated that when he did not receive a confirmatory telegram from the Head office which was at Bangalore, confirming that his solution was correct, he sent a telegram on 14th December to Bangalore and also contacted over the telephone the Managing Director at Bangalore and asked him as to why he was not given intimation of the fact of his solution being a correct one. He says that he also sent a registered letter on the 15th December and a telegram on 16th December. The complainant's further averment is that after his repeatedly sending letters and telegrams, he received a letter from the 1st accused on the 6th January, 1955 to the effect that they had made a search among the coupons submitted by the Collector but did not find the coupon of the complainant and that they were further investigating the matter and would write to the complainant in due course. The prizes for the correct solution were distributed on 29th December, 1954 and the distribution of the prizes was published in a paper called the 'Sporting Star' dated 9th Jan. 1955. The complainant got a notice issued through his lawyer and when it was of no avail he filed a complaint against (I) the Managing Director of the R.M.D.C. at Bangalore (2), the Branch Manager of the concern at Visakhapatnam and (3) the Collector of coupons at the same place. The charge against these was one under Section 420 I.P.C. cheating and also under Section 204 I.P.C. stating that the accused managed to destroy the documents in order that they may not be available for evidence. The accused pleaded not guilty and there was a further plea raised oo behalf of the accused No. I saying that in so far as the offence under Section 204 was concerned, in as much as the allegation of the complainant was that the destruction of the documents was at the Head Office by accused No. 1 at Bangalore, the Court at Visakhapatnam could have no jurisdiction to try that offence. The two points that the Magistrate considered in the case were (a) whether the allegation in the complaint disclosed offences under Section 420 and 204 and (b) whether the court at Visakhapatnam had jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 204, I.P.C. The District Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant. He came to the conclusion that the facts alleged in incompliant did not disclose any criminal offence under Section 420 while with regard to the offence under Section 204 he held that although it disclosed an offence under the said section, he had no jurisdiction to try the same. On revision the Sessions Judge reversed the findings of the Magistrate and remanded the case for enquiry. It is this order that is being attacked in this revision.

(3.) The Order of the Magistrate purporting to act under Sub-Section 2 of Section 253, Cr.P.C. is being attacked as illegal. The gist of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that it was premature to have dismissed the complaint as being groundless and discharged the accused. It is urged that the complainant had given particulars in his complaint and in his sworn statement of materials which should have been looked into by the Magistrate before he came to the conclusion that there was no case made out for an offence under Section 420. Section 253 (2) of the Cr.P.C. as contrasted with sub lection (t) empowers the magistrate to discharge the accused at any stage of the case if he considers the charge to be groundless. Sub-section (I) says that if on taking all evidence referred to in Section 252, that is to say, (a) the statement of the complainant and (b) all such evidence that may be produced in support of the prosecution, the magistrate finds that no case has been made oat to warrant a conviction, he shall discharge the accused. Sub-Section (1) gives the power to a magistrate to discharge the accused after recording the statement of the complainant and the evidence that may be produced in rapport of his complaint. Sub-Section (2) goes a step further and says that it is open to a magistrate to discharge the accused even without recording the evidence of the prosecution if he feels that the charge is groundless. The Subsection as is worded would make it clear that there is nothing to prevent the magistrate from taking the step of closing the case and discharging the accused immediately after the filing of the complaint if he feels that the charge is groundless.