Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 801 (AP)

KEDIYA VANASPATHI LIMITED v. R. V. S. MARIMUTHU

2003-06-26

S.R.K.PRASAD

body2003
S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) ORIGINALLY the petitioner has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. by filing Crl. P. No. 4722/2000. But subsequently, it has been converted into Crl. R. C. No. 743 of 2001. Kediya Vanaspathi Limited, represented by its Director has presented a complaint before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad, on for the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 406 and 379 IPC and the same was referred to Bhadurpura police Station, for investigation. Thereupon, a charge-sheet was presented which has been taken cognizance by the learned magistrate for the offence under Section 406 read with 34 IPC and 420 read with 34 ipc and numbered it as C. C. No. 83 of 1998. Thereafter, the respondents herein presented crl. M. P. No. 619 of 1999 before the lower Court seeking discharge on the ground that the matter is of purely civil in nature and the said act of breach of terms of the agreement do not constitute any criminal offence. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the matter has been carried in appeal before the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad, in Crl. R. P. No. 268 of 1999. After perusing the material and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge ordered for discharge of A-1 and A-2. It is significant to note that the de facto complainant has not made as a party to the said criminal revision petition. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by preferring this case. ( 2 ) THE main grievance of the revision petitioner is that the documents presented by the accused cannot be to taken in to consideration at the time of passing the order or discharge under Section 239 Cr. P. C. Sri P. V. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of supreme Court, namely, Minakshi Bala v. Sudir Kumar and others, (1994) 4 SCC 142 , State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Romesh Chander, AIR 1997 SC 2401 , satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 (3) Crimes 85 (SC), State, Anti corruption Bureau v. P. Suryaprakasam, 1999 SCC (Crl.) 373, and K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar and others, 2000 (6) supreme 609 . The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that Section 239 of cr. P. C contemplates of looking into the documents filed by the accused and wants to base his interpretation on the words "making such examination" found in section 239 Cr. P. C. He further relied on the decisions of Supreme Court cited by the other side and contends that there is no bar to look into the documents filed by the accused for discharging them. ( 3 ) BEFORE adverting to the said contentions, it is necessary to have a look at section 239 of Cr. P. C. Section 239 of cr. P. C. reads as follows: 239. When accused shall be discharged:"if, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section, 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing". The question that has to be considered at this stage is whether the words "making such examination" would mean looking into the documents presented by the accused. The word "examination" makes it clear that the accused can be asked about the case. It contemplates of putting questions and eliciting answers. The examination should be about the case. The examination means the act of eliciting by questions a person s knowledge of facts or science. But the word examination mentioned under section 239 Cr. P. C. does not make a mention that the accused can file documents at that stage. The learned Counsel for the respondent tries to interpret that examination includes production of documents. But such an interpretation cannot be culled out from the words making such examination found mentioned in Section 239 Cr. P. C. If the Legislature intends to permit the filing of documents by the accused, it could have stated specifically that making such examination including the documents filed by the accused. It is mentioned in the first part of Section 239 Cr. P. C. that the documents sent with it under Section 173 cr. P. C. Hence, the Section contemplates of looking into Police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. P. C. and oral examination of the accused. It is mentioned in the first part of Section 239 Cr. P. C. that the documents sent with it under Section 173 cr. P. C. Hence, the Section contemplates of looking into Police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. P. C. and oral examination of the accused. The mode of examination has also not specified in the section. In that view of the matter, it has to be treated as oral examination only. It is always left to the discretion of the Court regarding the examination, as the Section does not contemplate of presentation of documents by the accused at that stage. If the accused presents the documents at the time of examination, can the Court looked into those documents? The accused cannot be prevented from filing of documents at the time of examination, though the Section does not contemplate such procedure. When once the documents are presented, is it open to the Court to take into consideration of those documents. The statute does not contemplate any such thing. In the light of these provisions, the interpretation put on by the Supreme Court and the principles laid down by it have to be considered. It is categorically stated in Minakshi Bala s case (supra) at paras 6 and 7 as follows: para-6. Having regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case the magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. PC and examine the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 Cr. PC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240 Cr. PC. Para-7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Cr. PC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240 Cr. PC. Para-7. If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Cr. PC on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out - as has been done in the instant case - the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 Cr. PC and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional Court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 Cr. PC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in sections 239 and 240 Cr. PC; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence. ( 4 ) IT appears that the High Court has dealt with the case on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties and therefore, the supreme Court held that it is not proper. What is stated by Supreme Court is that when once charges are framed under section 240 Cr. P. C. the High Court would not be justified in relying upon the documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr. P. C. It is also stated that the high Court is not justified in invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings. It is stated in State, Anti Corruption bureau (supra) at paras-5 and 8 as follows: para-5. P. C. It is also stated that the high Court is not justified in invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings. It is stated in State, Anti Corruption bureau (supra) at paras-5 and 8 as follows: para-5. Without meaning any disrespect to the High Court, we are constrained to say that the settled law is just the reverse of what the High Court has observed in the above quoted passage as would be evident from even a cursory reading of Sections 239 and 240 Cr. P. C, which admittedly govern the case of the respondent. According to the above sections, at the time of framing of a charge what the Trial Court is required to, and can, consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr. P. C and the documents with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Of course, at that stage the accused may be examined but that is a prerogative of the Court only. Though, in view of the clear language of the above sections, no authority need be cited for the above proposition still we may refer to the judgment of this Court in minakshi Bala v. Sudir Kumar (to which one of us was a party) for therein, the scope and ambit of the above sections came up for consideration and it was held (SCCP. 144 para-6): ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the fact that the offences, for which charge-sheet was submitted in the instant case and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case the Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charges. Under the above sections, the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr. PC and examine the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 Cr. PC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of section 240 Cr. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 Cr. PC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of section 240 Cr. PC. Para-8: As already stated, the High Court in quashing the proceedings not only looked into the documents filed by the respondent in support of his claim that no case was made out against him even before the trial had commenced-but relied upon them to conclude that no offence was committed by him. This approach of the High Court is also contrary to the settled law of the land which was reiterated in Minakshi s case with the following words. (SCCP. 145. para-8 ). ( 6 ) ). Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we further find that instead of advening to and confining its attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr. PC the high Court has dealt with the rival contentions of the parties raised through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot be supported: firstly, because finding T regarding commission of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a Trial Court to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case. " in the above case, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that the documents referred to in Section 173 Cr. P. C. alone can be looked into and considered. The accused has got the only right of bearing heard and nothing beyond that, and ultimately, the supreme Court has found fault with the high Court in considering the documents produced by the accused and the approach of the High Court is also contrary to settled law of land. It is stated in Satish Mehra v. Delhi administration, (supra) at paras-9,10,11,12 and 14 as follows: para-9. It is stated in Satish Mehra v. Delhi administration, (supra) at paras-9,10,11,12 and 14 as follows: para-9. Considerations which should weigh with the Sessions Court at this stage have been well designed by Parliament through section 227 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short the Code ) which reads thus:"227. Discharge :if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. "section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section. When the Court is of opinion that there is ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible: Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is where there is "sufficient ground for proceeding". In Alamohan Das v. State of W. B. , AIR 1970 SC 863 = (1969) 2 SCR 520 = (1970)40 comp Cas 643 Shah, J. (as he then was) has observed in the context of considering the scope of committal proceedings under section 209 of the old Code of Criminal procedure (1898) that a Judge can sift and weigh the materials on record by seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment. It is open to the Court to weigh the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced to check whether there is any basic infirmity. Of course the exercise is to find out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 = 1979 cri LJ 154 this Court has observed that the judge while considering the question of framing the charge has: (SCC p. 9, para 10) ". . . In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 = 1979 SCC (Cri) 609 = 1979 cri LJ 154 this Court has observed that the judge while considering the question of framing the charge has: (SCC p. 9, para 10) ". . . the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out". However, their Lordships pointed out that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application: (SCC p. 9, para 10) "by and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. " At the same time the Court cautioned that a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage. ( 7 ) 10. An incidental question which emerges in this context is whether the Sessions Judge can look into any material other than those produced by the prosecution. Section 226 of the Code obliges the prosecution to describe the charge brought against the accused and to state by what evidence the guilt of the accused would be proved. The next provision enjoins on the Sessions Judge to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to consider (1) the record of the case and (2) the documents produced therewith. He has then to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the prosecution on the limited question whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. What is the scope of hearing the submissions? should it be confined to hearing oral arguments alone? ( 8 ) ). Similar situation arises under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report ). In that situation the magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. ( 8 ) ). Similar situation arises under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report ). In that situation the magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two stages the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the ground may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge. ( 9 ) ). The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the Code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in section 227 of the Code. ( 10 ) ). In the present case learned Sessions judge has missed certain germane aspects. Apart from the seemingly incredulous nature of the accusations against a father that he molested his infant child (who would have just passed her suckling stage then) the Sessions Judge ought not to have overlooked the following telling circumstances. In this case, the Supreme Court has taken a different view stating that the documents produced by the accused also can be taken into consideration. It is stated in State of Jammu And kashmir v. Romesh Chander (supra) at para-7 as follows: ( 11 ) ). In this case, the Supreme Court has taken a different view stating that the documents produced by the accused also can be taken into consideration. It is stated in State of Jammu And kashmir v. Romesh Chander (supra) at para-7 as follows: ( 11 ) ). Shri Manhas, learned Counsel appearing for the State, contends that the Trial Court and the High Court were not right in discharging the accused. It is necessary to mention that O. F. O. , Khojaria and chowdhary Girdhari Lai have died. Therefore, the prosecution against them stands abated. The question is : whether prima facie case has been made out against the respondents? Shri D. D. Thakur, learned senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 the lessees, contends that they did not commit any offence and they do not come under the provisions of either the Ordinance 5 of 1986 or the Act which was quashed by the High Court or the Act No. 7 of 1987. Therefore, no case has been made out against them. As stated earlier, we decline to consider the matter on merits for the reason that the High Court should have considered all the relevant provisions of the act and offences, and the contentions of the parties taking into consideration the averments made in the charge-sheet. It is now settled law that the charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence constituting the offence for proceeding further in the matter. Necessarily, therefore, the Court has to look into the relevant law and the allegations made in the charge-sheet and then consider whether any offence has been committed to frame charges for trial before discharging the accused. Since the High court has not done that, we think it proper that the High Court should reconsider the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side are left open. It is open to the Counsel to argue the mutter in the High Court. It is stated in K. Ramakrishna v. State of bhiar (supra) at pars-3 and 4 as follows: para-3. The inherent powers of the High court under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash proceedings, in appropriate cases either to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent powers of the High court under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash proceedings, in appropriate cases either to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily the criminal proceedings which are instituted against the accused must be tried and taken to logical conclusions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with the proceedings at an interlocutory stage. However, there may be cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised. Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged offence, the High Court should not be reluctant to exercise the inherent jurisdiction. Similarly where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value do not constitute the offence alleged, or without appreciating the evidence but only merely by looking at the complaint or the FIR or the accompanying documents, the offence alleged is not disclosed, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved. Para-4. The Trial Court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an enquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropper or quashed. As observed by this Court in rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others, [ 1999 (3) SCC 259 ], the High Court or the Magistrate are also not supposed to adopt a strict hyper-technical approach to sieve the complaint through a cullendar of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients of offence with which the accused is charged. Such an endeavor may be justified during trial but not during the initial stage. It is stated in Omparkash Sharm v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 crl. LJ 3478, at para-5 as follows: para-5. Such an endeavor may be justified during trial but not during the initial stage. It is stated in Omparkash Sharm v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 crl. LJ 3478, at para-5 as follows: para-5. Section 227 in Chapter XVIII, pertaining to trial before a Court of sessions, pursuant to a committal order and section 239 in Chapter XIX relating to trial of warrant cases by Magistrates, of the Code stipulates the circumstances and stage at which there could be a discharge of the person accused, and that stage is a stage of consideration, anterior in point of time to framing charges. It is envisaged therein that upon consideration of the record of the case, Police Report and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, the Court is obligated to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused or that the charge is groundless - and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or frame in writing the charges against the accused. The decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 766 (supra) and the other decisions adverted to therein dealt with, no doubt, the manner of exercise of such powers and the object underlying those provisions of the Code while construing the amplitude of both the language and content of powers conferred therein. It is in this context this Court held that there is nothing in the Code which shrinks the scope of hearing by confining it to only oral argument of the accused and consideration based upon the Police report and documents sent therewith or the materials presented by the prosecution at that stage. In substance, looking into also, by receiving any materials which the accused is able to produce in support of his stand during such arguments was held to be not an anathema. The further question as to whether even at that stage Section 91 of the Code could be pressed into service by the accused was never in the contemplation or consideration by the learned Judges. ( 12 ) WHAT is observed by the Supreme Court is in substance, looking into also, by receiving any materials which the accused is able to produce in support of his stand during such arguments was held to be not an anathema. ( 12 ) WHAT is observed by the Supreme Court is in substance, looking into also, by receiving any materials which the accused is able to produce in support of his stand during such arguments was held to be not an anathema. The respondents Counsel places reliance on the said observations and contends that there is nothing wrong in placing reliance on the documents filed by the accused by the revisional Court and ordering discharge. ( 13 ) A close scrutiny of the aforesaid decisions discloses that one set of decisions suggests that there is nothing wrong in taking into consideration of the documents filed by the accused at the time of examination under Section 239 Cr. P. C. Second line of decisions of Supreme Court shows that the Court shall not look into the documents other than those mentioned under Section 239 Cr. P. C. and 173 Cr. PC. When two principles were there contradicting with each other, this Court has to interpret section 239 Cr. P. C, and accept such interpretation which fits into the language of Section 239 Cr. P. C. The words making such claim does not contemplate of production of documents. But if the accused gives out the necessary information during his examination regarding the contents of the documents, the Court is bound to take those things into consideration. The court has to keep in mind that the documents produced by the accused are not put to test about the truth or otherwise of the same at that stage. But there is nothing wrong in taking the substance of the documents produced, if the accused is examined under Section 239 Cr. P. C. That is the reason why, the Supreme Court has stated that there is nothing wrong in taking into consideration of the documents presented by the accused. The Supreme court has also pointed out that when the complaint itself is not maintainable, proceeding with the trial of the case is sheer waste of time. The Apex Court has considered the said aspect of maintainability and also discharged the accused, since ex-fade, the complaint itself is not maintainable. I have already stated if the accused were to be examined and the contents of the documents are given out by him, the court is bound to take into consideration of all those aspects. The Apex Court has considered the said aspect of maintainability and also discharged the accused, since ex-fade, the complaint itself is not maintainable. I have already stated if the accused were to be examined and the contents of the documents are given out by him, the court is bound to take into consideration of all those aspects. If the accused simply files those documents, can the Court take into consideration of the same? If the documents filed by the accused goes to the very root of the case and shows that the complaint is not maintainable under law, there is nothing wrong in taking into consideration of those documents. Normally, the Court cannot take into consideration of the documents filed by the accused at the time examination under Section 239 Cr. P. C. But, there are some exceptions whereunder the Court can take the documents filed by the accused into consideration. Those exceptions cannot be culled out from the language of Section 239 Cr. P. C. If the accused were to be examined at that stage, he can always take advantage of the same and mention about the contents of the documents and also can give out his answers to the questions put to him. It is rightly contended that when there are two views given out on a question of law, the later view prevails. However, it is necessary to interpret the language of section 239 Cr. P. C. and see which view fits into the principles laid down by the supreme Court. If the Court finds that one of the view fits into the interpretation put on to Section 239 Cr. P. C. then such an interpretation has to be accepted instead of totally giving a go-by to the words mentioned under Section 239 Cr. P. C. I am of considered view that the language in section 239 Cr. P. C. cannot be extended to such an extent which can cover the documents produced by the accused at that stage. If he is examined, he is always at liberty to give out the contents of the documents and place it before the Court. The Court is bound to consider the information given out by the accused at that stage, in case he is examined. Section 239 cr. P. C. further contemplates of giving an opportunity of being heard the accused and prosecution. The Court is bound to consider the information given out by the accused at that stage, in case he is examined. Section 239 cr. P. C. further contemplates of giving an opportunity of being heard the accused and prosecution. Does the hearing contemplates production of documents? So far as this aspect is concerned, the section is vague. There is a lacuna in the section. The interpretation that can fit into it is the Court cannot take into consideration of the documents produced by the accused. If the contents of the documents are given by out him at the time of examination under section 239 Cr. P. C. the same can always be taken into consideration. Even assuming that the Court has no right to consider the documents produced, the case of the prosecution is based on breach of contract. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that merely because the complaint spelt out a civil wrong, it does not mean that the criminal Complaint is not maintainable and places reliance on a decision reported in lalmunidevi v. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 SCC 17 . This is a case of contractual obligations and breach of contract as can be culled at the very contents of the complaint and the documents produced along with the complaint. When such is the case, the Criminal Complaint itself cannot be entertained, as it does not give rise to a Criminal offence. The order of the revisional Court appears to be correct, if the contents of the complaint and charge- sheet are taken into consideration along with the documents produced. In that view of the matter, there is no need to set aside the order passed by the revisional Court in discharging the accused though this Court do not agree with the method followed in arriving at the conclusions. Hence, this criminal Revision Case fails, and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) IN the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismisses.