DUBU BUDU Vs. DUBU BAIRADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the petitioner and in this petition assails the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint Under Section 203.of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that he had purchased a pump set from the Agro Industries Corporation through the Andhra Bank and was giving the said pump set on hire to outsiders. Accused No. 1 took that pump set for one month on hire with the rental fixed at Rs. I00/ - per day. He paid Rs. 400/ - towards advance and after the period for hire expired when the complainant demanded the pump set and the balance dues, the accused did not return the same. To a complainant's registered notice, the accused replied that he had never taken the pump on hire from the complainant. On the other hand, it was stated that the complainant had sold the same to accused No. 2. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint case. Admittedly, the complainant had not taken anything in writing from accused No. 1 while giving the pump set to him on hire as he was a relation of the complainant.

(3.) MR . Mohanty appearing for the complainant petitioner contends that the Magistrate at this stage has merely to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary enquiry Under Section 202, a prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused exists or nor. The Magistrate is not required to weigh the evidence meticulously. By the. impugned order the Magistrate having done so had exceeded his jurisdiction and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.