AJAY Vs. JAI MATA DI ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent of respective Counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BY this Revision Application, the revision applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 85/2010 whereby the learned Judge directed the trial Magistrate to appreciate the evidence of complainant to find out whether a case is made out under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate on Exh. 57 was also set aside.

(3.) IT appears that in support of the complaint, Bharat Ramswarup Kungar, Proprietor had verified the complaint in respect of the facts mentioned above. The complainant was also allowed to be cross-examined on behalf of the accused in respect of statement made on oath by or on behalf of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the learned Magistrate was called upon to issue process under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as also under Section 420, IPC. However, it appears that the process issued by the learned Magistrate was limited to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thus, the complainant moved an application Exh. 57 pointing out to the Magistrate the evidence of the complainant and witness on behalf of the complainant and also the accusations made under Section 420, IPC and prayed for to take into consideration the pleadings of the complainant so as to frame charge against the accused under Section 420 of IPC as well. The learned Magistrate who heard the application Exh. 57, made observations that no special ingredients, other than as alleged in the complaint, have been made out to attract Section 420 of IPC and that even though the charge can be altered or added at any stage, still sufficient ingre dients must be proved for attracting section which is to be altered.