The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complainant should lead evidence after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, and only after recording such evidence, the court may proceed to frame a charge or discharge the accused.

( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 504/87 by the complaints Nos. 1 and 2 is directed against the order dated June 26, 1987 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 23/87 setting aside the order dated February 7, 1987 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C. C. No. 1461/85 ordering the framing of a charge against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for an offence under Sections 417 and 421. P. C. , and the consequent order of remand made by the Sessions Judge to the trial Court. Shri Venkataranga Iyengar submitted that he appears for the respondents in Criminal Petition no. 1224/87. Arguments of all Advocates are heard on final merits in both the cases.

( 2 ) THE material facts are as under :- The complainant No. 1 is the father of complainant No. 2 - jayarathnamma. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son respectively. The accused No. 1 and 2, on 29-8-1983, are stated to have borrowed Rs. 1,70,000/- from complainant No. 1 on executing a pronote and are also stated to have borrowed Rs. 1,30,000/- from complainant No. 2 on the same day, on executing a pronote. According to the complainants, accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not return the money due to them under both the pronotes. When the complainants insisted on the accused paying the money, accused No. 2 is stated to have given a cheque for the said two amounts due under the two pronotes on 1-6-84 and thus acknowledged the amounts due under the pronotes. According to the complainants, the accused persons, sold their immovable property for Rs. 4 lakhs even though it was worth more than that, with a view to defraud the complainants. Hence the complainants filed a complaint against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

( 3 ) THE Court below recorded the sworn statement of the first complainant Rajanna and ordered issue of process under Sections 417 and 421. P. C.

( 4 ) AFTER the issue of process and after the accused were served, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 both appeared before the learned Magistrate. As can be seen from the order-sheet dated 9-5-85, the magistrate treated the case as a warrant case and posted it for evidence before charge. On 21-4-86 the Advocate for the complainants submitted that he had no evidence to lead before charge and that the sworn statement of complainant No. 1 may be treated as his evidence before charge. On 11-11-86 a submission was again made on behalf of complainants that the complainants had no evidence to lead and requested the Court for framing a charge on the basis of the sworn statement of complainant No. 1 recorded by the Court below before issue of process. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, after perusing the allegations made in the complaint, and the sworn statement of complainant No. 1, and after hearing the Advocates for both the parties, passed an order dated 7-2-87 that a prime facie case for offences under Sections 417 and 421. P. C. had been made out and so he framed a charge for the said offences against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the said order dated 7-2-87 passed by the Magistrate, approached Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in Criminal revision No. 23/87. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the Advocates for both the parties, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and remanded it to the Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law.

( 5 ) THE complainants being aggrieved by the said order-have approached this Court with Criminal revision Petition No. 504/87. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the said order of remand have approached this Court with Criminal Petition No. 1224/87.

( 6 ) THE allegations made in the complaint are that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 received a cash of rs. 1,70,000/-from complainant No. 1 on 29-8-83 and executed a pro-note and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the same day received Rs. 1,30,000/- from complainant No. 2 and executed a pronote on the same