1. This Rule is directed against an order made by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on the 25th February 1921 by which he dismissed, under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the complaint brought by the petitioner against the opposite party.
2. The complaint purported to be one of the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 477, Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the accused had wilfully and dishonestly destroyed two documents, one said to be a written contract dated the 1st December 1920, by which the complainant's firm sold to the accused or to his from 100 maunds of what is called T.N. shellac at Rs. 190 per maund. He further alleged the destruction, similarly, by the opposite party of another document spoken of sometimes as a tender and sometimes as a delivery order bearing endorsement in favour of the complaint's firm made by one A.M. Arratoon. The learned Presidency Magistrate took the view that, even if the facts alleged by the petitioner were true, still no offence had been committed and the complainant's firm had been in no way damnified. Similarly, the argument mainly before us is that neither the contract which appears to have been in the form of what is spoken of as a bought note, nor the tender or delivery order endorsed by Mr. Arratoon constitutes a valuable security within the meaning of Section 477, Indian Penal Code. It is eally unnecessary for us at this stage to express any definite opinion on the point whether the bought note either by itself or when taken with an acceptance is or is not a valuable security Similarly, it is unnecessary for us definitely to say whether the tender or delivery order in the form in which it is placed before us and bearing endorsement in original is or is not a valuable security. There are other sections in the Indian Penal Code in addition to Section 477 which require consideration in this connection and we may refer the Presidency Magistrate, for instance, to Section 204 of that Code, whichever section if, any, of Indian Penal Code may be applicable when the facts have been once ascertained. We are of opinion that there has been no sufficient enquiry into the present matter and into the petitioner's complaint, and that, as a matter of fact, the facts of the present case have not been sufficiently investigated.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order made by the Presidency Magistrate on the 25th February dismissing the petitioner's complaint under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and direct that a further enquiry be now made into the petitioner's complaint. The further enquiry now directed will be made by a stipendiary Presidency Magistrate other than the Magistrate whose order has now been set aside, such other Magistrate to be nominated by the Chief Presidency Magistrate.