KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two revision petitions; one at the instance of the complainant and the other by the State of Punjab against the order of Shri S.S. Tiwana, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana whereby he discharged the accused in a warrant case trial at the initial stages. Since the goal of the petitions is common, they shall be taken to have been disposed of by this order.

(2.) ONE of the accused Rattan Singh is said to have contracted to buy a house form Khushal Singh complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- and the latter to have received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money on 22.5.1980. Allegedly, the same day Rattan Singh accused and his son Vinod Kumar accused took him to the Andhra Bank, Ludhiana and delivered to him a pay order in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- purporting to be a part of the sale money. Two days later, on 24.5.1980 when the complainant through the Punjab National Bank required encashment of the pay order, the Andhra Bank' Ludhiana returned the same with the remarks that it has been reported lost by the purchaser regarding which a police case has been registered and further that it was awaiting instructions in that regard. In this manner, the complainant thought that he was cheated and defrauded by the accused persons because before handing him over the pay order, they had received a receipt from him in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. In these circumstances- he addressed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 26.6.1980 whereupon the case was registered and the accused respondents were put up for trial.

(3.) WHEN the Magistrate is at the stage envisaged under section 239, Criminal Procedure Code, he is required to determine whether there is prima facie case against the accused for his being charged for any offence. At that stage, he is not required to go into meticulous details of the prosecution or to enter into a complicated process of reasoning to doubt the prosecution story. In the given circumstances, to consider the photostat copy of the entry from the Petitioner-writer's register, without confronting the same to the complainant was also not a sound exercise of judicial discretion. There was enough material to go on with the trial, as has been projected by the prosecution. The defence could have its turn at the appropriate stage. These comments would suffice to upset the impugned order without elaborately discussing the merits of the case or meeting the intricate arguments of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.