K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the rejection of the revision filed by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated September 29, 1973. It appears that a complaint was filed on May 31, 1972, by Hazari Lal Jain, who was the President of the Trust Committee of Hazari Lal Jain Trust, against the applicant alleging that he had persuaded the clerk of the school to hand over the cash book, salary register and guard files on the promise to return the same but he did not do so despite the demand being made several times and, therefore, the applicant was guilty of the offence under Sections 406/420 IPC. It was also stated in the complaint that these documents had been detained unjustifiably and unauthorisedly by the applicant. On the complaint being filed, the Magistrate took evidence of Hazari Lal Jain under Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, summoned the accused. He being satisfied that a prima facie case against the applicant was made out, framed a charge under Section 420 IPC against the applicant. Against the framing of the charge, a revision was filed by the applicant before the Sessions Judge. The revision was rejected. Hence, the second revision.
(2.) THE question that needs determination in this case is whether there was prima facie evidence available with the Magistrate justifying the framing of the charge against the applicant under Section 420 IPC. Admittedly, the Magistrate had taken evidence of Hazari Lal Jain, the president of the Trust, and, thereafter, found on the basis of that evidence that a prima facie case had been made out. An attempt was, however, made before the learned Sessions Judge by the applicant to establish that the documents in his possession were, subsequently, handed over by him to the police. Be that as it may, the said evidence was not brought before the Magistrate and, therefore, the framing of the charge by the Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal requiring interference by this Court under Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is always open to the applicant to show when the trial starts, that he did not either commit the offence or that he had, in fact, returned the documents. Sri Tej Pal, counsel appearing for the applicant, however, urged that the applicant had filed an application under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate for summoning the Sub -Inspector of Police to prove his case, but as the Magistrate did not grant the prayer made in the said application, the order of commitment was erroneous. The submission made is not tenable in law. I have perused the application and do not find anything in that application which could show that it related to the controversy under enquiry before the Magistrate. In that application the applicant had only stated that a report had been lodged by him against the complainant & others. Even if that fact was brought on record, that would not establish that a charge u/Sec. 420 IPC could not be framed against the applicant. Under Section 540 Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is obliged to summon or examine a person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is not that every application for summoning any type of witnesses, who may be helpful in the matter, has to be allowed under this provision.
(3.) THE other submission of the learned counsel for the applicant was that as the Magistrate did not judicially apply his mind to the evidence given by the complainant, therefore, the order framing the charge against the applicant was erroneous. The submission in so far as it goes may be correct that the Magistrate is required to apply his mind judicially, but, in the present case, from a perusal of the order of the Magistrate I find that he had read the evidence on record and, thereafter, found that a case for framing the charge against the applicant had been made out. The requirement of judicious application of mind had been fulfilled in the present case.;