STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. TIRATH RAM CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has filed this revision petition against the judgment passed by Shri Surinder Singh Thakur, Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh dated 21 -6 -1994. By means of impugned judgment passed la Criminal Revision 24/93, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the Criminal Revision filed by respondent against the order dated 29 -9 -1993 framing charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code

(2.) Facts giving rise to this case are that a written complaint was filed by the Branch Manager, Kullu with the Station House Officer, Kullu alleging fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.35,000/ - by the respondent from his saving accounts No. 36455, Further grievance against the respondent in the complaint was that he was having a saving bank account No. 36438. Another customer of the Kullu brach of the complaisant bank namely, Shri Vikas Labru was having saving bank account No. 35455 wherein he deposited Rs.35,000/ -. This amount, instead of being credited to the recount of said Vikas Labru, was erroneously credited and pasted in the account of the respondent In the account of the respondent there were only credit balance of Rs.489.05 paise which rose to Rs.35,489.05 paise. Out of this sum after having withdrawn Rs.400/ - on 264 -1991, the respondent is stated to have deposited Rs.4,461/ - on 30 -8 -1991, but again he withdrew Rs.39,000/ - which was inclusive of Rs.35,000/ -, stated to have been wrongly credited to the account of the respondent. In these circumstances, the prosecution alleged that the respondent being well aware about the fact that this amount doss not belong to him, committed fraud and mis -appropriated the same, therefore, F.I.R. No. 303 of 1991 came to be registered at Police Station, Kullu. After completion of the challan, the respondent was sent to trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, who after being satisfied that there are prime facie materials to proceed against the respondent, ordered framing of charge on 23 -9 -1993 and the charge was also framed on the said date, which order as well as framing of charge was questioned by the respondent in the criminal revision filed by him before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Kullu, who has passed the impugned order which is questioned by the petitioner -State in the present revision petition.

(3.) The learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that from the material brought on record, prima facie the challan papers establish the case against the respondent for the offence of cheating, thus punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code which should have been allowed to be tried and in case after conclusion of the trial the respondent was able to make out a case for acquittal, then die law would have had its own course. According to him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has fallen into error by setting aside the charge framed against the respondent which prima facie is not only illegal but is also improper and, therefore, he urged that the revision petion deserves to be allowed and paise sent back to the trial court for proper trial on the charges framed against the respondent in accordance with law.