Balbir Singh vs State of Punjab

J.B. Garg, J.

Balbir Singh, Advocate, of District Kapurthala has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the First Information Report No. 16 dated 23.2.1991 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala for offences under Sections 120B/419/465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 15.3.1993 whereby a charge for the aforesaid offences has been framed against the petitioner as well by the trial Court at Kapurthala.

The petitioner has alleged that Rachhpal Singh and Jagtar Singh met him on 31.1.1991 and told him that they were sons of Hakam Singh and he had identified the two affidavits which were to be presented for the purpose of attestation before an Executive Magistrate at Kapurthala. However, when the Executive Magistrate made a verification it came to his notice that one of Balbir Singh had been identified as Rachhpal Singh by the petitioner Advocate. The Executive Magistrate reported the matter and the present First Information Report was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Kapurthala. After completion of the investigation, a challan was also presented and a charge was also framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.3.1993, as seen above.

On behalf of Balbir Singh, Advocate, the present petitioner, who is accused No. 3, it has been argued that the two persons met him and described themselves as sons of Hakam Singh and in good faith Rachhpal Singh was identified by him at the time of actual verification. It came to his notice before the Executive Magistrate that in reality Balbir Singh was impersonating as Rachhpal Singh.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued that the petitioner, Advocate, identified Rachhpal Singh in good faith and he did not know that in reality he was not Rachhpal Singh but Balbir Singh son of Mangal Dass. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the young lawyers do identification on affidavits etc. and the act of the petitioner of erroneous identification of one of the deponents was not intentional. A copy of the affidavit has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner as ordered by this Court to find out as to what were the contents of the affidavit and for what purpose, it was likely to be utilised. This affidavit dated 31.1.1991 consists of a few short paras that the deponent was an agriculturist and no case of any kind regarding the small piece of land which he possessed, was pending. It appears that such affidavits are required when a person is applying for a loan as a small landowner and this affidavit was simply to be placed before the Executive Magistrate Ist ClasscumDistrict Removal of Grievances Officer, Kapurthala. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Attar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports 211 , where a Power of Attorney was got identified from an Advocate of Hoshiarpur. After referring to the role of a lawyer in District Courts in this country, the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were invoked and proceedings were quashed.

In the case now in hand as well, the learned counsel for the respondent State could not contradict that the aid rendered by the petitioner lawyer by identifying the depondent was unintentional. The learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala while dealing with the revision remained hesitant mainly because he could not invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In view of the facts and circumstances briefly discussed above, it is not considered a fit case for prosecution of a practising Advocate, the conclusion is that the present petition succeeds and impugned First Information Report, Annexure P1, and the charge, Annexure P2, and the proceedings Annexure P5, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner.