NEMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original miscellaneous petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. has been filed against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Jaipur District Jaipur framing charge against the petitioner under Sec. 420 Penal Code and also against the order of the Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision holding that the order was of interim nature. First of all this court made a reference to larger Bench to answer the question whether an order framing charge against the accused petitioner is an interlocutory order and this has been answered in the affirmative. The order framing charge therefore could not have been challenged in Revision and the only remedy available to the accused is under section 482 Crimial P.C. and this petition has to be decided.

(2.) The facts on the basis of which the case against the petitioner has been made out are that in the year 1978 he opened a current account in the name of the firm M/s V.P. Dal and Besan Mills at the Mandbana Branch of Central Bank of India. It is alleged that he obtained over a sum of Rs. 7,00,000.00, on the basis of bogus storage certificates and hypothecation statements in the name of Shah Agro Industries. In this manner he is said to have cheated the Bank. Further the prosecution case is that firm of Shah Agro Industries was not having any licence to deal in pulses and was not having stock of the gram or gram dal but falsely declared goods to be in its possession. In other words it pledged goods which did not exist.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partner in different firms and the goods he pledged with the Bank were of a firm in which he was a partner and had control over it and the hypothecation was not bogus. The loan taken from the Bank has also been repaid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the guilty person in the case should have been the Bank Manager who had exceeded his powers in showing favour to the firm of the petitioner and the petitioner has not in any manner cheated anybody. Whatever declaration he gave was that he had interest in the good^ which had been pledged and this declaration was not false. According to the petitioner he has remained within the limits and there was no motive on his part to cheat and go away with the money or goods.