DEVENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Nikshepko Ke Hito Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam Jabalpur, whereby the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 3(4) and 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepko Ke Hito Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam [in short 'the Act'] were framed.

(2.) THE Prosecution's case in short is that an advertisement was given in the newspaper that if someone is ready to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - then, he will get a periodical profit on the deposited amount and after some period, deposited amount will also be returned. That advertisement was given by Bhawna Purchasing Corporation, which was operated by the applicant. Smt. Vijaya Dayal complainant of the case entered into in the contract with the applicant and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - by a cheque, but according to the contract, she got nothing as periodical profit and therefore, the complainant had lodged an FIR against the applicant. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Court.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. He has submitted that the applicant had returned the cheque to the complainant and no transaction took place. If that cheque was returned to the complainant then, there was no need to execute a written agreement. Execution of written agreement indicates that the applicant encashed the sum. It is a matter of evidence that as to whether the applicant returned that cheque or not. At this stage, such type of evidence created in favour of the defence cannot be considered.