JUDGMENT K.N. Srivastava, J. - This is an application under S. 561-A CrPC. It arises out of the following facts :- M. L. Pandey opposite party No. 1 was the owner of Studebaker Champion Car. This car met with an accident in the night between 28th and 29th May 1965. It was given to the applicant for repairs on a certain amount as wages . The applicant instead of repairing the car is alleged to have removed certain parts of the car and refused to return back the car to the opposite-party. The opposite-party then filed a complaint against the applicant under Sections 420/406 IPC. 2. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of M. L. Pandey and certain other witnesses under S. 200 CrPC and summoned the applicant. The statement of the applicant was recorded and the charge under S. 406 IPC was framed against him. The evidence on behalf of the opposite-party has yet to be recorded. 3. The very fact that the learned Magistrate recorded evidence and framed charges against the applicant clearly indicates that there was prima facie case against the applicant. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the matter was of a civil nature and therefore on the facts alleged in the complaint, no case under S. 406 IPC was made out. He read out certain portions of the statements of the witnesses examined by the opposite party. In this application, the evidence cannot be sifted and held that on the evidence as it stood, the conviction of the applicant is not possible, when prima facie, the allegation against the applicant is that committed the offence under S. 406 IPC. 5. The court in which the complaint is pending has jurisdiction to try it. No illegality was shown to me during the course of argument which goes to the root of the case on account of which the applicant could not be convicted and sentenced . I have already observed that in a proceeding under S. 561-A CrPC the evidence cannot be evaluate and the only fact which has to be seen in this connection is as to whether there is any legal evidence against the applicant. It cannot be denied that the evidence which was adduced against the applicant is legal, It may find favour with the trial court or it may not, but all the same it is a legal evidence. It cannot be denied that the evidence which was adduced against the applicant is legal, It may find favour with the trial court or it may not, but all the same it is a legal evidence. In view of this, the application has no force. The application is rejected. The stay order is vacated.