MANGILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision by Mangilal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dated 1-5-1956 by which he has set aside the order of discharge of the applicant dated 18-3-1952.

(2.) TWO accused, namely, Mangilal and Bhonrial were challaned by the police, Alwar u/s. 409 I, P. C. for criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 2000/- of the office of the Director of Education, Matsya, It was suspected that there was defalcation of the amount of Rs. 2000 /-and the audit officers checked the accounts. The audit report showed that there was defalcation of the sum of Rs. 2,000/- and the responsibility of it was laid on the two accused Bhonrilai and Mangilal. The case came up before the Extra Magistrate, First Class. Evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution and the statements of the two accused were recorded. The learned Magistrate found that no offence was made cut against Mangilal and he consequently discharged him. He. however, framed, a charge u/s 409 I. P. C. against Bhonrilai. Bhonrilai went in revision against the charge-sheet to the court of the District Magistrate, Alwar but the application for revision was dismissed. The State did not file any application for revision against the order of discharge of Mangilal. After the revision application of Bhonrijal was dismissed, the case came up for trial before another Magistrate and Bhonrilai claimed de novo trial. At this trial Mangilal was produced as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate after recording prosecution evidence committed Bhonrilal to take his trial u/s 409 I. P. C. before the Court of Sessions at Alwar by his order dated 5-2-1956 because he thought that he himself could not adequately punish the accused. At the same time an application for revision dated 25-4-1956 was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the order of discharge dated 18-3-1952 of Mangilal. A notice was issued to Mangilal to show cause as to why he should not be committed to Sessions Court to stand his trial in the case. Mangilal appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and showed cause but the learned Sessions Judge found that the order of the Magistrate was not only imperfect or perverse but was also foolish. He consequently set aside the order of discharge and ordered fresh inquiry in the case. It is against this order that Mangilal has come in revision to this Court.

(3.) I have heard Sri J. K. Mathur on behalf of the applicant Mangilal and Sri R. A. Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State. I have also allowed Sri G. P. Sharma to intervene on behalf of Bhonrilal,