IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order of discharge of the applicant from the charges under Section 420, 409, 406, 411, and 201 of I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate was final in nature and not an interlocutory order. The court also clarified the maintainability of the revision before the learned Sessions Court and emphasized the need for the learned Magistrate to consider the entire material available in the charge-sheet.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this criminal revision invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the legality and sustainability of the order dated 28.01.2020, passed in Criminal Revision No.99/2019, whereby the learned Sessions Court have set-aside the order dated 12.10.2018 framing charge against applicant and further remitted back the case to the learned trial Court for passing order afresh on framing charge after providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent No.1 lodged a written report to the concerned police station alleging that applicant was engaged by him for the purpose of showing samples to the customers of the goods kept in cold storage, tell them rate, take orders for sale and further to send the sold goods, out of the cold storage. When complainant asked the owner of cold storage with respect to status of goods kept in the cold storage, it was informed that applicant has sold part of the goods kept in the cold storage. The good sold is without his knowledge and thereby he has committed breach of trust and caused loss of Rs.50.00 lakhs. The sale consideration was used by applicant and absconded. Based on the report, FIR was registered against applicant initially for the offence under Section 420, 406 of I.P.C.. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet for offence under Section 420, 406, 409, 411 and 201 of I.P.C. against three accused persons including applicant. Further it is mentioned that investigation is going on against two of accused persons Ajay Bhattar and Sanjay Bhattar.

3. Learned Magistrate upon consideration of material available in the charge-sheet while framing charge has discharged the applicant from the offence under Section 420, 406, 409, 411 and 201 of I.P.C. and framed charge under Section 381 of I.P.C.. The order dated 12.10.2018 framing charge against applicant was put to challenge by respondent No.1 by way of filing revision under Section 399 read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C., which came to be allowed in part by the impugned order.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant would submit that learned Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned order observing that learned Magistrate has not considered the entire material and the documents available in the charge-sheet in appropriate manner and by overlooking the fact learned Magistrate has assigned reasons for passing the order dated 12.10.2018 and further discharged the applicant from the offence under Section 420, 409, 406, 411 and 201 of I.P.C.. The goods were not entrusted to applicant but from the complaint it is apparent that goods was entrusted to owner of the cold storage as it was kept in the Siddhi Vinay Cold Storage, Giraudh. Applicant was an employee and he was paid monthly salary, which is also evident from the ledger account of applicant (Page No.83), part of the charge-sheet. As there is no entrustment of any goods to applicant, the offence under Section 406, 409 will not be attracted. He also contended that Section 420 will also not be attracted as there is no inducement for delivery of property and cheating. To attract the offence as defined under Section 420 as also 406, 409, dishonest inducement for delivery of property and entrustment of the property is sine-qua-non, which is absent in this case. Learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 12.10.2018 of framing of charge has clearly observed that the aforementioned ingredients of offence under Section 420, 406, 409, 411, 201 are not present in the charge-sheet. He further contended that the order, subject matter of revision before the Sessions Court is an interlocutory order, hence, the criminal revision ought not to have been entertained and if during the trial learned trial Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence available on record that further any other charge is to be f