STATE OF M P Vs. MANAKCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order dtd. 17-2-1988, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonkutch, in Cr. Case No. 297/86 thereby discharging the accused of charges u/s420, 511 I.P.C. and Sec. 37(1)(2) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 (for short Adhiniyam).

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the accused respondent at the material time was a licensed dealer of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sonkutch. The accusation against him is that on 18-2-1986 he purchased five quintals 35 kgs. of juar from complainant Dulesingh at the rate of Rs. 823.90 per quintal. Instead of paying the price in cash he issued a pink coloured bill asking the complainant to collect the price in cash within three days. When the complainant approached after three days for money he simply refused to pay him on the ground that he had already paid the same, relying on an endorsement RokdaT as made on the said bill. It is significant to note that this endorsement Rokda is not to be found on the duplicate carbon impression of the Said bill; which ought to have been there. The complainant, therefore, contacted the Mandi Inspector who lodged a report at the Police Station, similar complaints were made by many others, namely Jagannath, Laljiram, Ajaisingh, Fateshing, Omprakash and Kunjilal, from whom the accused had purchased agriculture produce and issued similar bills with endorsement ROKDA but in fact not paying them in cash. They were also similarly deceived by the accused. The accused had cheated the complainant and others, and also violated the provisions of Adhiniyam.

(3.) Shri Desai, learned P.L. urged that the Trial Court was palpably wrong in holding that the dispute was of a civil nature in face of the fraudulent endorsement TROKDA put on the bill in question, with dishonest intention to cheat the complainant who was indulged to part with his property. It was contended that on the basis of allegations made in the F.I.R. the statements of witnesses as recorded during investigation and the documents as filed along with the charge sheet provide sufficient, material for making out more than a primafacie case against the accused.