The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Magis trate on the ground the Magistrate had number followed the procedure laid down by the Code for taking companynisance of the case and issuing process to the accused after the police had sent a B report in the case.
482 of the Code before the High Court and sought the quashing of the order of the Magistrate.
145/1980 under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was investigated by Shri Bayar, Inspector of Police.
Availing the credit facility, he had drawn a sum of Rs.
On the foot of the report, a case was registered against the second respondent in Ulsoor Police Station as Crime No.
So far as the facts are companycerned, they are as follows.
204 of the Code.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.1987 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.
Aggrieved by the report sent by the police, the appel lant approached the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the report being quashed and permission granted to him to prove the companymission of of fences by the second respondent.
Thereupon, the second respondent filed a petition under Sec.
When Shri Bayar went away on promotion, his succes sor took over the investigation but subsequently he sent a B Report to the Court stating that further investigation was number required as the case was of a civil nature.
The learned Magistrate, after perusing the investigation records came to the view that a prima facie case was made out against the second respondent and companysequently he passed an order for a calen dar case being registered against him for offences punisha ble under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for summons being issued to him under Sec.
It was averred that the second respondent, was its Divisional Manager Export Import and had negotiated on its behalf with an Italian firm in July 1979 for supply of quality granite stones and had obtained a letter credit.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
400 of 1986.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant has companye forward with this appeal.
The High Court has referred to the ratio laid down in an earlier case K. Sham Rao v. A.R. Diwakar, 1979 2 Karnataka Law Journal 441 and followed it.
105 of 1989.
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Karnataka under Sec.
Krishna Prasad and P.K. Rao for the Respondents.
The appellant gave a report to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore on 20.2.1980 against the second respondent alleg ing that he had companymitted the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
482 Criminal Procedure Code For short the Code setting aside the order or the Second Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore directing the registration of a calendar case against the second respondent under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the issue of summons to him under Section 204 of the Code.
V. Goswami and B.R.G.K. Achar for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. Special Leave granted.
13,59,750 but failed to supply granite stones to the Italian firm and instead had misappropriated the amount.
