OM PARKASH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash and Ashok Kumar have come to this Court in this revision against the order dated January 11, 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the complaint was remand to the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class for further inquiry, after setting aside the order of discharge dated August 28, 1990.

(2.) THE petitioners are being prosecuted on the basis of a complaint brought by Gopal Bhushan, respondent No 2. According to the averments made by Gopal Bhushan, he was running a business under the name and style of M/s Durga Shakti Emporium, Lakkar Bazar, Ludhiana. Both the accused respondents purchased hosiery goods on credit from him vide bill No. 412 dated April 8, 1988 worth Rs. 2180.80. In token thereof, Om Parkash signed the bill in the presence of the complainant and promised to make the payment within one month from that date. After that vide bill No. 413 dated April 28,1988 the accused purchased goods on credit worth Rs. 2184.48 from the petitioner and, assured him that they would pay the price of the goods within one month from that date. The accused Om Parkash signed the bill in token thereof. But they did not make the payment of the price of the goods in spite of the demands. On December 20, 1988, they again contacted complainant. They gave him false assurance that they would make him the payment of the previous two bills, if he supplied them more goods on credit. Acting on this assurance of the respondents. the complainant vide bill No. 440 dated December 20,1988 supplied the goods worth Rs. 7619/- on credit to the respondents. The respondents represented, to him that the complainant should send his servant to deliver the goods at the premises of the respondent, Om Parkash and from there also to receive the payment of two previous bills. The petitioner deputed his servant Inderjit to deliver the goods to the respondents at the premises of the respondent No. 1. When Inderjit took the goods to his premises the two accused got it un-loaded in the house of Om Parkash without making any payment either for the goods or for the previously supplied goods. They also did not sign the bill for these goods. Inderjit PW brought these facts to the notice of the complainant. On this the littler approached the accused and demanded 'payment from them. But both of them misbehaved with him and threatened to teach him a lesson. The intention of the respondents right from the very beginning was dishonest and to cheat him. The complainant reported the matter to the police, but no action was taken and hence the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence, the Magistrate issued process against the petitioners. At the precharge evidence, the complainant made his own statement and examined Inderjit has PW2, and also proved the bills Ex. P-1 and P-2.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Sessions Judge has followed the dictum of this Court in 1990(1) CLJ (Civil Criminal and Revenue) 95 (P&H) Bhagwant Singh and ors. v. Gopal Bhushan. I find no reasons to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Magistrate has fallen in legal error while discharging the petitioners and the learned Audl. Sessions Judge had correctly ordered the remand of the case and holding of further inquiry. I hereby dismiss the petition. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on December 19, 1991.