ORDER

This revision has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5399 of 2016 in C.C.No.199 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, dated 19.12.2016, thereby discharging the respondents from the charges under Sections 34, 107, 120B, 406, 465 and 420 I.P.C.

2.The petitioner filed a private complaint as against the respondents under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that in pursuant to an advertisement in the year 2006, thereby calling for applications for the appointment of super stockists in Kanyakumari District and Tuticorin, for supplying the food products manufactured by the respondents. The petitioner was chosen as the super stockist for Tuticorin District by the respondents. Thereby, the petitioner was working as a super stockist under the name and style of “Niks Enterprises” from 03.04.2006 to 05.07.2006. Later, the respondent was doing business in the name of “Thai Agency” and he continued as a super stockist for Tuticorin Area from 25.09.2006 to 04.11.2009. The petitioner was also appointed as a super stockist of Aachi Masala products for Kanyakumari District and he carried on his business under the name and style as “Kanya Enterprises” in the name of his wife. During the course of business, the first respondent used to send his products on advance payment of the amount by the petitioner either through cheque or DD. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.6,91,44,473/- through his three entities to the first respondent and the first respondent supplied goods for a total sum of Rs.6,73,57,257/- to the said three business establishments. Therefore, the first respondent is liable to return cash of Rs.17,87,216/- and in addition, the first respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,13,000/- for the expiry items. Therefore, the accused persons had committed the offences under Sections 34, 107, 120-B, 406, 465 and 420 of I.P.C.

3.In order to take cognizance, the trial Court had recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner and on the basis of the statement of the petitioner, a process was issued against the respondents/A.1 to A.3 under Sections 406, 420, 34 and 107 of I.P.C. In order to discharge them from all the charges, the respondents 1 to 3 / Accused Nos.1 to 3 filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5399 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C and the same was allowed by the trial Court, by order dated 19.12.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent therein, filed the present Revision.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, permitted the respondents to file a petition in Crl.M.P.No. 5399 of 2016 under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C and allowed the same. That apart, there are specific allegations in order to attract the offence under Sections 34, 107, 120-B, 406, 465 and 420 of I.P.C as against the respondents. Even then the trial Court, without considering the same, conducted a roving enquiry and discharged the respondents. All the points discussed by the trial Court are material for trial and without permitting the petitioner to substantiate his contention, the trial Court mechanically discharged the respondents. The trial Court need not go deep into the probate value of the material on record and it is for the Court to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out or not. It is not for the Court to weigh the pros and cons of evidence and to analyze them in a meticulous fashion while considering the discharge petition. In order to substantiate his contention, he relied on the Judgment of this Court in N.Sagayam and others Vs. Prabhavathi reported in [2016 (2) T.N.L.R 129 (Mad)], wherein, it is held as follows:-

“14.As per Section 245 of Cr.P.C., the Learned Magistrate is required to consider the evidence with a view to forming prima facie case for conviction. When a prima facie case is made out, the charges should be framed as per decisi