Mansa Ram Advocate vs State U.T.Chandigarh

A.S. Bains, J.

The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and he stands charged under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He has challenged his prosecution by way of this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed that the petitioner is a retired Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and is an old man and that the proceedings cannot continue against him as he only identified the signatures of Pal Singh and Madan Mohan on two different financial guarantee deeds, and the same were attested by Shri Hoshiar Singh, who was then functioning as Land Acquisition OfficercumExecutive Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Mr. H.S. Brar, counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, contended that the petitioner identified the signatures of Pal Singh and Madan Mohan on two financial guarantee deeds, which were in fact the signatures in the hand of Anil Kumar co accused, who is a passport agent.

I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Brar. The petitioner is an old man and he does not practice in the court. It is stated at the Bar that he only sits in front of the Estate Office and identifies the persons. There is nothing on the record to show that he was in conspiracy with the coaccused. Mr Brar could not show me any material on the record regarding the conspiracy or preconcert. In Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1973 P.L.R. 121 (S.C.), it was observed by their Lordship of the Supreme Court as under:

"Where an advocate was engaged by some persons for identifying them as claimants in an application made on their behalf to claim certain land acquisition compensation amount and the advocate believing the statements of the claimants as true filed his vakalatnama agreeing to act on their behalf, and there was no evidence to show prior knowledge on the part of the advocate that the claimants were not the real persons entitled to claim the amount and no concert between the former and the latter was brought on record.

Held, that it could not be said that there was prima faice evidence entitling the Magistrate to commit the advocate for offences under section 120 B read with sections 419, 420, 511 and section 467 read with 471, Indian Penal Code".

In view of the principle of law as laid down in the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court, the proceedings against the petitioner, who is also an advocate and an old man, cannot be continued. The present case stands on a better footing. In the Supreme Court case, the advocate had not only identified but also undertook to refund the amount. He also verified, "I personally know Nand Lal s/o Gopal. He has signed in my presence. In case of wrong payment, I shall be responsible to refund the amount."

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30th November, 1983, passed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, charging the petitioner for the offences mentioned above is quashed. However, the proceedings against the other coaccused in the present case will continue in accordance with law.