- (1.) The subject matter of challenge in this criminal revision is an order whereby the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge and framed charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Mr. Himangshu De, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged the following points in support of his prayer for quashing; (a) The complaint is time barred. (b) The evidentiary material collected during the time of investigation does not disclose commission of any offence justifying framing of charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the State, vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing and referring to the evidentiary material contained in the Case Diary submitted that the present petitioner on the promise for arranging job in different Government organizations obtained a total sum nearly about Rs. 1.60 lakhs from the complainant, an unemployed youth. He further submitted that the complicity of the petitioner having clearly disclosed on the materials collected by the police during investigation the interference with the order of framing charge does not at all arise.
(3.) Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the evidentiary materials collected during investigation.;