S.I. Jafri, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by R. Wheeler applicant thereby impugning the judgment and order passed by Sri V. S. Bajpai, Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital by which the lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and set aside the judgment and order dated 11.6.1982 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Nainital.
(2.) The facts of the case are that applicant R. Wheeler had purchased a leyland Bus No. USR 7096 financed by Investment Finance Company, Delhi. The respondent, namely, Pramod Chand Singh was employed as Driver on the aforesaid bus. Applicant R. Wheeler was sustaining constant loss and wanted to dispose of the said bus. When the respondent came to know of the intention of the applicant, he proposed to purchase the bus and offered Rs. 40,000/- in cash to the applicant and the balance amount out-standing to the Finance Company which had financed the bus was agreed upon to be repaid in instalments by the respondent. The respondent purchased the said bus under a purchase and hire system through the State Bank of India, Haldwani, Nainital and obtained a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the aforesaid bank by hypothecating the said bus to the aforesaid bank. Out of the money so received as loan from the aforesaid State Bank of India, the respondent paid a sum of Rs 51,000/- to the Inspector of Investment Finance company Delhi. On the loan which the respondent had obtained from the State Bank of India Haldwani applicant, stood one of the two guarantors and in September 1975, the applicant received a notice from the aforesaid bank that the respondent had not paid the instalment due to the Bank. On enquiries, the applicant came to know that the bus in question was being plied in Delhi as against the Permit in which the bus could only be plied in the area of Nainital. He further came to know that the aforesaid bus had been sold by the respondent to one M/s I. S. Goel of Delhi after forging permit and the registration book and even without obtaining the clearance certificate from the R. T. O. Nainital. A report of this occurrence was made to the superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Delhi on 20.1.1976 by registered post. A written report was also sent by the applicant to the D. I. G. Police Hill Range on 25. 8. 1976 on the basis of which a case was registered on 26. 9. 1976 under Section 420, I.P.C. Thereafter, investigation followed and after conclusion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent under Section 420 and 471, I.P.C.
(3.) The case of the respondent is that of denial. The facts delineated in defence are that he had not purchased the bus in question and there was only an agreement to purchase the bus from the applicant, that he had applied for loan of Rs. 60,000/- from, the State Bank of India Haldwani but the aforesaid bus had not been hypothecated to the State Bank Haldwani nor the bus had been sold by him to M/s Goel of Delhi nor had any document been forged by him.;