P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - (1.) Special Leave has been granted by this Court to the Appellant Shaikh Alimuddin Ahmed (Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1968) and Kali Prasad Poddar. Appellant (Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 1968) against the summary dismissal by the High Court of Criminal Revision Petitions filed by them in which they challenged the order of the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, committing them to stand trial in the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 120-B-420. Indian Penal Code. The circumstances in which the Appellants were committed to the Sessions Court arose out of a complaint filed by Bidhu Bhusan Bhattacharjee alleging that Ramgopal Neotia of Geekay Corporation, Sudhir Chatterji a salesman of the India Automobiles in conspiracy with Appellants Alimuddin Ahmed and Kali Prasad Poddar sold a second-hand Bedford Diesel Chassis representing it to be a new one. It appears that Shaikh Serajuddin had purchased in the name of his son the Appellant Alimuddin a Bedford Diesel chassis on hire purchase basis from India Automobiles through a firm of Financiers known as Geekay Corporation. The transaction was put through on 31-5-60 when Rs. 29404/60 was paid by the Geekay Corporation to India Automobiles in full payment of the lorry. It also appears that the Appellant had a body built thereon for Rs. 1850/-. It is however asserted that since no road permit was granted to Alimuddin, the vehicle could not be registered and consequently about 15 months thereafter the same lorry was said to the complainant by the Salesman. Sudhir Chatterji of the India Automobiles through the same Finance Corporation which cancelled the agreement with Alimuddin and entered into an agreement with the complainant instead. By this transaction the complainant was able to purchase the same vehicle, with the body which was originally built for Alimuddin Ahmed and for which the complainant paid Alimuddin by cheque Rs, 1850/-. The complainant thereafter obtained a Road permit and plied the lorry between Calcutta and Ranchi till about March,1962. By this time he had done about 16000 miles and when the Engine began to give trouble he sent it for repairs to M/s. Howrah Motor Accessories. It was then that he came to know that the engine of the lorry was not a new one and needed to be rebored. Later when the complainant committed defaults in payment of instalments, M/s. Geekay Corporation took possession of the lorry after which a complaint was lodged with the Deputy Commissioner of Police against Sudhir Chatterji and Ramgopal Neotia under Section 120-B read with 420, Indian Penal Code for conspiracy and cheating in having sold him an old vehicle by misrepresenting it as a new one. After investigation a challan was filed by the Police on 27-2-64 against Ramgopal Neotia and Sudhir Chatterji in which the Appellant Alimuddin Ahmed, the Appellant's father Serajuddin and Appellant Kali Prosad Poddar were cited as witnesses. While this challan was pending against the said accused the complainant filed on 25-1-65 a petition for the issue of warrants for the arrest of Jyotirmoy Mukherjee, Kali Prosad Poddar. Shaikh Serajuddin and Shaikh Alimudin Ahmed alleging that as there was a prima facie case, against them under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 467, Indian Penal Code they should be arrested. On this application the Magistrate directed the Investigation Officer to submit his report and on 9-2-65 he rejected that petition on the ground that having regard to the Police report no further orders were necessary. The complainant filed another application with similar prayers against the Appellant Alimuddin Ahmed and Poddar on 11-3-65 and on the same day that petition was also rejected. The complainant perhaps believed that perseverance pays, for he filed a third petition on 17-4-65 which was also rejected. The fourth attempt was not however direct in that he apparently persuaded the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer to move the Court which they did on 20-5.65. An application was presented for amending the challan by including the name of Alimuddin Ahmed and Poddar as accused and for submitting the amended challan. The Magistrate after perusing the amended challan on 26-565 ordered them to be summoned for offences under Section 120-B read with 420, I. P. C. whereupon Ramgopal Neotia and Poddar filed two separate Criminal Revisions in the High Court challenging this order. On 28-4-67 the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petitions and set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that a supplementary charge-sheet could not be filed by the Investigating Officer as in its view "Any further investigation into the offence would trench on the cognizance that has already been taken by the Magistrate". While quashing the supplementary charge-sheet the High Court observed that "if in the course of the inquiry that has been started the Magistrate finds evidence to indicate that these 2 person named in the supplementary charge-sheet are guilty, he would be quite competent to summon them after the conclusion of the inqury and to direct their prosecution". In the result it directed the discharge of Appellants Poddar and Alimuddin Ahmed. After the High Court's order the Magistrate while committing Neotia and Chatterji for being tried by the Sessions Court on 12-2-68 directed the summoning of Alimuddin Ahmed and Poddar and on 10-5-68 on the same material in which Neotie and Chatterji were committed, committed them to answer the charge referred to above. Against this order both the Appellants filed separate Revision Petitions which were summarily rejected by the High Court.
(2.) In this Appeal the simple question is whether on the admitted facts as presented by the prosecution is there a prima facie case against the Appellants to answer the charge for which they have been committed. The complainant had purchased the vehicle from India Automobiles through the Agency of a Finance firm Geekay Corporation. In the sale of this vehicle to him Appellant Alimuddin is said to have helped the other accused.
(3.) The case against Kali Prosad Poddar is that he had given a sale note Ex. 15 on behalf of India Automobiles causing it to be believed that it was issued by an authorised dealer of the Hindustan Motors Manufacturers of Bedford Trucks at a time when it had ceased to be so. It is therefore alleged that the sale letter being a document which created a right to a valuable security the accused by issuing such a document committed an offence under Section 467 read with 471, I. P.C.;