- (1.) Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in G.R. No.40 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for his discharge, has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No.13 of 2003 instituted under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint filed by the present opposite party no.2-Bijay Kamal Kumar which was subsequently referred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla under Section 156(3) of the Code to the concerned police station on the allegation that the present opposite party no.2, the complainant as well as the petitioner jointly purchased a 407 model truck from one Rajendra Mehta for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and both the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no.2 shared 50% each of the consideration money and they started plying the said vehicle jointly and shared the profit, loss and liabilities. But on 21.06.2007, the petitioner and the present opposite party no.2 entered into an agreement that this petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.67,000/- to the opposite party no.2 within the period of nine months and the vehicle was entrusted to the petitioner but with the clause that if he failed in payment of said amount, he will have to pay additional sum of Rs.5,000/- per month extra. However, if the petitioner feels any difficulty in payment of money he may sell out the vehicle to meet out the terms of the agreement and from the date of agreement dated 21.06.1997 the petitioner will be the actual owner and will bear all the liabilities of the vehicle like tax token, permit etc. It is also alleged that the terms of the agreement was not complied with by this petitioner whereafter a legal notice was sent to him but whenever opposite party no.2 requested the petitioner for payment, he tried to avoid by giving promise to pay the Amount. On 10.10.2002, when the opposite party no.2 visited the house of the petitioner and requested to obey the terms of agreement, he bluntly refused to pay the amount.
(3.) It appears from the record that the police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code upon which the court took cognizance of the offence and send the case for trial in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla. After appearance, the present petitioner filed the petition under Section 239 of the Code for his discharge but the court below rejected the said petition as indicated above holding that on perusal of the case diary it appears that there is enough evidence to frame charge against the accused as the informant entrusted the vehicle to the accused-petitioner with some condition but the petitioner deceived him by not paying even a single Paisa and further held that there is enough material on record for framing of charge against the accused under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.;