J. R. CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under s. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the re-visional order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 30. 5. 1988 whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh dated 6. 6. 1985 talcing cognizance against the accused-petitioner Dwarka Prasad for the offence under s 420 read with 120b IPC.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are : that accused-persons Mahendra and Gopal are the owners of M/s Ganpati Dall Mills, Jaipur and they were also doing some business in Delhi. It is alleged that they approached accused-petitioner Dwarka Prasad, a businessman of Rawatsar for purchase of 3-4 trucks of Gram. On this, Dwarka Prasad gave them a letter in the name of M/s. Sharda Trading Company, Hanumangarh that these persons are known to him, they are correct persons and their business-behaviour is good and, therefore, they may help them in purchase of 3-4 trucks of gram and may send his own persons to take payment at Jaipur. This letter was written on 1. 8. 1984 on the letter-head of his firm M/s Gulab Chand Sagarmal Lakhotia Rawatsar. On the basis of this introductory letter, these accused-persons viz. Mahendra and Gopal approached the complainant firm M/s Sharda Trading Company, Hanumangarh and purchased two trucks of gram: one consignment containing 122 bags and the another containing 150 bags of gram. THEy were despatched by Truck RSC 5486 and RRK 3486 respectively. THE complainant sent Shri Kishanlal and Ashwini Kumar with these two persons to receive the payment. It is alleged that accused Mahendra and Gopal got unloaded their truck at Jaipur and they did not make any payment to Shri Kishanlal and Shri Ashwini and actually, they have sent these consignments to Delhi and thereby, they have cheated the complainant. Mr. M. L. Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the accused-petitioner has done nothing except writing an introductory letter in which he has cautioned the complainant firm to send their persons initially with the truck to Jaipur for receiving the payment and thereafter, the payments will be made as usual. According to him, there was notfiing wrong in sending an introductory letter and hence, no offence against the accused-petitioner is made out. Mr. Garg has submitted that accused-petitio-ner Dwarka Prasad has been examined as a witness and it has not been alleged that he was in any way involved in any conspiracy to cheat the complainant firm. He has submitted that it was the accused Mahendra and Gopal who have cheated the complainant firm and not accused-petitioner Dwarka Prasad. Mr. Garg has submitted that when the matter was reported to the police station, Jhotwara (Jaipur), it did not take any action as will be clear from the letter of the S. H. O. Jhotwara written to the S. P. , Sriganganagar. I have gone through the record of the case. The S. H. O. has only written the occurrence has taken place in the jurisdiction of Hanumangarh town and, therefore, no action can be taken at Jaipur. When the case was registered at Hanumangarh, certain witnesses were examined and during investigation, Kishanlal son of Kanniram who was sent with the truck to Jaipur with the accused persons has categorically stated that when the payment was not made and they rebuked by him for non-payment of the price of the gram, accused Mahendra told him that they have conspired with Dwarka Prasad to cheat them and they have done whatever they wanted to do and they are not going to make, any payment. This fact was reported by Kishanlal to his father Kanniram. Ashwini came back before this reply was given. Even Shivkumar and Raghulal have also stated to this effect. Thus, it is a case where the accused has given inculpatory statement as regards the conduct of himself and other persons involved in the case from which it is clear that some conspiracy was hatched between accused Mahendra, Gopal and Dwarka Prasad and on the basis of that conspiracy the introductory letter was written by Dwarka Prasad and that was the only reason which prompted the firm to sell them this large quantity of gram which has resulted in this cheating. Without this introductory letter, the complainant firm was not going to deliver goods worth Rs. 1,31,000/- to the accused-persons Gopal and Mahendra. Moreover, in the light of this confessional statement given by accused Mahendra, it prima faciely appeared that a conspiracy was hatch-ed and in pursuance of that conspiracy, this cheating took place. Thus, these allegations if taken at their face-value prima faciely make out a case for trial u/secs. 420b and 120 IPC against the accused-petitioner. In these facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it a fit case in which the impugned orders passed by both the Court-below may be set aside. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. .;