KESHAB CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs. KISHORE CHANDRA MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (TCode for short), the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, talcher, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against him.

(2.) The opposite party is the complainant. His case in brief is that the petitioner, a dealer of levy cement, approached him on 27-9-1985 saying that he had a permit of 240 bags of cement and unless the price thereof was deposited by 30-9-1985 the permit would lapse. He requested the opposite party, who was in need of cement, to pay Rs. 13,200/- to him so that the amount could be deposited towards the price of the cement for release of the stock. The opposite party believed the representation of the petitioner and immediately handed over a cheque payable by the U. Co. Bank, Dera to the petitioner in presence of witnesses. Two days thereafter the petitioner met and requested him to arrange accommodation for storage of cement, Accordingly, the opposite party arranged accommodation. Two days thereafter the petitioner again approached the opposite party and informed him that due to some departmental difficulties the stock of cement could not be lifted and assured that the same would reach soon thereafter. But the petitioner was not to be seen at all and 240 bags of cement were never supplied to him. On 23-5-1986 the petitioner denied to have taken money in the shape of cheque from the opposite party. Subsequently, on enquiry the opposite party learnt that the petitioner utilised the sum of Rs. 13, 200/- by drawing a demand draft in favour of the Civil Supplies Officer, Dhenkanal along with cash, in total, amounting to Rs. 18,000/-. It was stated that from the very inception of the transaction the petitioner intended to cheat him of a huge amount and so he committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate made an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code by examining a witness produced by the opposite party and was satisfied that there were materials for presuming that the petitioner had committed an offence of cheating. Therefore, by the impugned order he took cognizance of the offence and issued process.