KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. PARASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision, which is directed to be treated as a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , is against the order dated August 22, 1980 of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bilara directing the interim custody of tractor No. BHR 8146 to complainant Parasmal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are these. On 16. 3. 79, Parasmal lodged a report at police station, Bilara alleging that he had purchased tractor No. BHR 8146 in the month of September, 1977 from Jeevraj Singh and registration was duly transferred in his favour. On 30. 9. 77, Kailash Chandra accused took the tractor from him on hire and executed a rent-deed. Kailashchandra thereafter through his father Heeralal sold the tractor to Jassaram and thereby committed offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406, I. P. C. During the course of investigation, the tractor was recovered from a 'bara'. After the investigation, now the police has submitted a final report. The case of Kailashchandra is that he purchased the tractor from Jeevraj Singh, and it was also duly registered in his name. Parasmal has some old debts outstanding against him and his father and, therefore, he forged certain documents including the alleged rent-deed and thereafter got the tractor registered in his name.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner argued that at this stage, the trial court or this Court will not undertake an intricate enquiry to find out whether the alleged rent-note and sale letter were false documents. I am inclined to agree with this view. However, from the first information report and on the admission of Parasmal, the following undisputed facts emerge ; - 1. that Kailashchandra purchased the tractor from Jeevrajsingh and the allegation made in this behalf by Parasmal in the first information report is false; 2. that the registration was transferred the in name of Parasmal on the strength of alleged sale-letter from Kailashchandra. The disputed question is whether the alleged sale-letter and rent-note by Kailash Chandra are false documents. For the purposes of this petition, I take it that Parasmal obtained this transfer of the tractor from Kailashchandra and thereafter hired it back to him though it appears unusual that a tractor would be given on hire for Rs. 600/- per month only and no rent whatsoever would be paid by Kailashchandra to Parasmal. From the final report, and the evidence collected during the investigation, it also appears that this tractor was not sold by Kailashchandra or his father to Jassaram. Parasmal had no evidence worth the name about this alleged transfer. Jassaram has denied that this tractor was sold to him. Prima facie, therefore, no offence of criminal breach of trust was committed by Kailashchandra in respect of this tractor. The conclusion is further strengthened by the final report filed in the case.