C.A.Rahim, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel. The applicant has filed this application to quash the charge-sheet dated 4-1-1996 and the entire pro ceeding in case No. 162 of 1994 pending in the Court of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE allegation is that the complainant entrusted Rs. 50,000 to the applicant at Manu Steel Factory at noon on 14-3-1994 for handing it over to their another factory at Ambala but the applicant did not hand over the money at Ambala Factory for which a first information report was lodged. After investigation a charge-sheet under Section 406, I. P. C. has been framed. The learned counsel has alleged the charge sheet on two grounds firstly, that the said money was handed over (returned) at the Hauz. Qazi, Head Office of the informant just after reaching there because of some confusion regarding the place and person to whom the said money had to be handed over. In paragraph 9 it has been stated that the supplementary report called by the A. G. A. supports the contention of the applicant. Annexure 3 is the report dated 9-2-1995, wherein it has been stated that: ". . . . . . . . However, the I. O. recorded a supplementary report stating therein that the cash was handed over at Hauz Qazi at their head office. This supplementary statement carries no weight, as the first report is FIR and clearly stated therein, that the cash in question was handed over at Manu Steel, Bulandshabar Road, Ghaziabad (U. P.)"
(3.) THE interpretation of this paragraph made by the learned counsel is incorrect. THE point was whether the money handed over to the accused applicant was at Hauz Qazi or at Mauu Steel, Bulendshahar Road, Ghaziabad. THE said paragraph never meant that the cash was returned by the accused appellant to their Head Office at Hauz Qazi or at Manu Steel, Ghaziabad. THE learned counsel has read a portion of the said paragraph and was in an illusion that the money had been returned back at Hauz Qazi but after reading the entire portion it does not indicate that the money was refunded but it indicates that it was handed over to the applicant A contradictory report, appeared whether it was made even to an accused at Hauz Qazi or at Manu Steal, Ghaziabad. What was the actual place of making over of money to the accused applicant has been clearly stated by the complainant in the first information report. In any case the said paragraph does not make out any case in favour of the accused appellant. So the first contention fails. The learned counsel has been submitted that the charge was framed on 4 -1 -1996 but no opportunity of hearing was given to the accused as required under Section 238, Cr. P C. According to her when the learned Magistrate did not extend the right of hearing to the applicant, who was in jail at that time, the charge framed by him suffers from infirmity for which it should be struck down.;