ELIYAS KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District in Criminal Revision No.9/2013, whereby the revisional court upheld the order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara in Criminal Original Case No.161/2009, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the orders impugned vehemently urged that the learned trial judge has directed the framing of charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences without any basis. He contended that there is no material on the record of the case by which a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that the petitioner even prima-facie committed the offences for which the charges were framed against him. He further contended that the complainant Joga Ram granted sub-dealership to the petitioner for selling the Eicher tractors. The complainant's case was that he sent four (4) tractors to the petitioner for onward sale. As per the complainant, the petitioner sold the tractors and did not remit the sale proceeds to the complainant and thereby the offences in question were committed. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew this Court's attention to the statements of certain witnesses examined during investigation and contended that as a matter of fact, twelve (12) tractors had been sent to the petitioner by the complainant and the petitioner sold all the tractors. The sale proceeds were utilised by the petitioner in his personal affairs and in lieu thereof, the petitioner got the agriculture land belonging to his aunt Smt. Dhanni transferred in the name of the complainant without any consideration. He thus, urged that prima-facie, no loss was caused to the complainant. Learned counsel has also placed on record photostat copies of certain documents alleged to have been prepared as a break-up of the accounts between the complainant and the petitioner. On the strength of these documents, learned counsel tried to contend that the petitioner made payment of major portion of the sale proceeds to the complainant by demand drafts and for the remaining amount, Dhanni's land was transferred to the complainant without taking any consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that ex-facie the ingredients of cheating and breach of trust are missing in this case. He thus prayed that the charges framed against the petitioner are illegal and deserve to be set aside.