Madan Lal Chauhan vs State
1986 Latest Caselaw 8 Del

JUDGMENT

G.R. Luthra, J.

(1) By way of this judgment, two revision petitions, one of Madan Lal Chauhan and the other of Basant Singh, against the same order dated January 31, 1985 of Shri Rakesh Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi directing the framing of the charge under sections 420, 458, 471, 406 read with section 120-B Indian Penal Code , are being decided. Madan Lal Chauhan filed revision petition in the High Court itself and the same is No. 93 of 1985. Basant Singh filed the criminal revision petition in the Court of Sessions and vide order dated August 16, 1985 (passed in the file of Crl. Rev. 98/85 the same was directed to be transferred to this Court. It appears that the criminal revision of Basant Singh has not still been registered by the registry. That should be done immediately. The judgment is being recorded in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1985 filed by Madan Lal Chauhan.

(2) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the aforesaid petitioners and one R. T. Jagtiani entered into a conspiracy to cheat M/s. Athi Offset Printers, a partnership firm carrying on printing business in Shivakashi (Tamil Nadu) and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, a sum of Rs. 8,25,000 was extracted by cheating from the said firm as the sale price of a non-existing printing machinery and with a view to facilitate such cheating, false documents were prepared.

(3) The version of the prosecution briefly is as follows. Mis. Athi Offset Printers were to install a printing machine at Sivakashi. One of the partners of the said firm named S. Mariappan met Basant Singh petitioner who introduced the former to Madan Lal Chauhan, petitioner. An agreement came into existence whereby Madan Lal Chauhan agreed to sell a printing press for Rs. 8,25,000. That machine, according to Madan Lal Chauhan, was then lying with Rehmat Press, Asif Nagar. Hyderabad. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid to Madan Lal Chauhan vide receipt Noted 29th March 1980. A further sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid thereafter. The purchaser wanted to raise a loan from the bank for payment of the remaining price. Therefore, an invoice was handed over by Madan Lal Chauhan to S. Mariappan. On the basis of that invoice, a loan of Rs. 6,75,000 was got sanctioned. A bank draft for the said amount was to be given directly to Madan Lal Chauhan by the bank only after the machine had been dismantled. Madan Lal Chauhan, however, insisted that he should be paid the money prior to the delivery of the machine. Therefore, on 10th November 1980 an agreement was executed between Madan Lal Chauhan, Central Bank of India and the firm M/s. Athi Offset Printers. On the basis of that agreement, a bank draft in the amount of Rs. 6,75,000 was given to Madan Lal Chauhan, petitioner.

(4) S. Mariappan did not know English or Hindi. Therefore, taking advantage of the same, Madan Lal Chauhan brought into existence some documents showing that the machine had been brought to Delhi, that the same was lying at B-218, Naraina, Phase I, New Delhi and that the same had been delivered to the purchaser by way of sending the same through Omkara Transport, New Delhi. Madan Lal Chauhan never had the machine lying at B-218, Naraina, Phase-1, New Delhi from where it was purported to have been delivered. Madan Lal Chauhan had wrongly informed by means of a letter dated July 1, 1980 that the machine had been taken delivery of from M/s. Rehmat Press, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad on 15th June 1980 and that the same had been brought to Delhi. He also made a false document dated 16th November 1980 that the machine had been delivered to the purchasers in perfect running condition.

(5) The allegation against Basant Singh is that in pursuance of the conspiracy he had given a wrong certificate dated July 1, 1980 that he had inspected the machine, that the same was in good working condition and that its market value was Rs. 8,75,000. The allegation against R. T. Jagtiani was that he had also wrongly given valuation report of the machine even though the same was not in existence.

(6) The report by Shri S. Mariappan was lodged with police station Naraina on 4th May 1981. That report was type written signed by S. Mariappan on the basis of which first information report No. 150 was registered in the police station Naraina. Originally, the investigations were started by the police of that police station but thereafter the investigation was done by crime branch of Delhi police. After completion of the investigation, a report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . was lodged in the court. Shri Rakesh Kapoor. Metropolitan Magistrate directed the framing of the charges against all the three accused.

(7) R. T. Jagtiani filed a revision petition in the court of Sessions. Vide order dated 25th July 1985 (copy of which is in the record of the trial court), Shri K. B. Andley, Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi accepted his revision petition and discharged him.

(8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it stood established from delivery receipt dated 16th November 1980 that the purchasers S. Mariappan had received the machine in perfect working order, that being so, the entire case fails on that ground. Learned counsel also relied upon the following portion of the tripartite agreement dated 10th November 1980 : "THAT the Buyer and their aforesaid engineer have examined the aforesaid machinery and are satisfied that the same is in good order and funning condition and undertake to arrange the dismantling the same through their aforesaid Engineer under the supervision of the seller and ensure its immediate dispatch by road transport to Sivakasi and they further undertake to ensure the delivery of the receipt of payment, invoice, certificate of good order and running condition to the Bank."

(9) The learned counsel contended that also conclusively showed that the purchasers had themselves inspected the machinery and that, therefore, they could not urge that the machinery never existed and was never taken delivery of.

(10) But that contention has no force. The case of the prosecution is that the machine never existed, that no delivery of the machinery was ever made and that false documents were executed in respect of the same. The prosecution has collected evidence in that respect. That evidence is necessary to be considered and cannot be shut out. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, it was held by the majority of the bench of learned Judges of the Supreme Court that where the allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of the properties was made out in the complaint and the allegations were clear, specific and unambiguous, the right to prove the case could not be denied to the complainant. When in the present case the allegations of the prosecution are very clear and shows the commiting of the offences or cheating etc., it cannot be denied the right to prove that case.

(11) In it was held that a charge by a Sessions Court while acting under sections 227 and 228 Criminal Procedure Code . must be framed if there was a strong suspicion that the accused had committed an offence. It was further held that if scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused were same thing like even at the final stage of framing of the charge, a charge must be framed. Therefore, we have to see in this respect if the charge had been rightly framed or not. For that purpose, the evidence of the prosecution is to be considered. There is statement of S. Mariappan fully supporting the prosecution case. There is statement of one Harjit Singh, who is owner of the building in a portion of which Madan Lal Chauhan was carrying on business of printing that the latter owned only three small machines which he had sold off. His statement implies that Madan Lal Chauhan did not have any big machine which could fetch a value of Rs. 8,25,000. The prosecution also collected the evidence for showing that there was no transport company by the name of M/s. Omkara Transport by which the machine is purported to have been transported. It is, therefore, prima facie clear and there is a strong suspicion that the petitioners had committed the offence alleged against them. S. Mariappan has been dishonestly induced to believe that the machine existed, that the same could be sold and that acting on that wrong representation, he was induced to give Rs. 8,25,000. This amounts to cheating as defined under section 415 Indian Penal Code .

(12) The written documents on which the counsel for the petitioner relies will form part of the evidence which will be considered by the trial court at the final stage of the case.

(13) Under these circumstances there is hardly any justification for interfering in the order of the learned trial court. Both the criminal revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court on February 3, 1986 which, court, as I am told by learned counsel for parties is now presided over by Shri P. D. Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate. A copy of this order along with records of the trial court be sent to that court immediately.

(14) Criminal Revision No. 93 of 1985 and the criminal revision filed by Basant Singh stand disposed of. Petition dismissed.