JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision application directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dated 14.1.1974, arising in the following circumstances. 2. Nihchaldas instituted a complaint under section 420, Indian Penal Code, against Mohan Dass saying that the latter had received a sum of Rs. 3000/- from Nichal Das's sister Smt. Devi Bai telling her that it was by way of earnest money for the purchase of a plot of land in the sum of Rs. 8000/-and the balance was payable at the time of the registration of the deed. Mohan Dass thereafter told Nichal Das that he had utilised the amount for himself and unless another sum of Rs. 8000/- was paid to him the sale deed could not be executed. Nichal Das examined himself and produced the postal copy of the receipt said to be executed by Mohan Dass. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant the learned Munsif Magistrate, Ajmer City West, Ajmer, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was a dispute of a civil nature. Nichal Das preferred an application by way of revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge who transferred it to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the statement of Nichal Das showed a prime facie case of a dishonest intention of Mohan Das in accepting the amount and that it could not be said that the grounds for proceeding against the accused were not sufficient and that the case was fit for further enquiry. Aggrieved by this order, Mohan Dass is before me. 3. Mr. Bhargava strenuously urged that Nichal Das only examined himself and produced do further evidence and what he said was in the nature of hearsay. 4. I have gone through the statement of Nichal Das and I am unable to agree with this construction. Without in any manner expressing my opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage because I do not think that there is any glaring defect resulting in miscarriage of justice. The matter will be examined in accordance with law by the learned Magistrate. 5. With these observations, this revision application is dismissed. *******