State vs Joginder Lal Jain

This petition of revision is directed against the order passed by the 1st. Addl.Session Judge Jammu on 26.08.98. By the impugned order,

learned Judge refused to take cognizance of the challlan State v/s Joginder Lal Jain and Ann in which the accused have been charged for

committing offences punishable under section 467,468,471,420 and 120B RFC on the ground, one that crime branch had no jurisdiction to

investigate the aforesaid offences and two, that the charge against the accused is punishable under Section 7 of the J&K Grant of Permanent

Residence certificate Act, 1963.

The State has challenged the order on the ground that Crime Branch has been empowered to investigate the offence vide notification SRO 133

dated:02.04.1991 issued under Section 4(l)(o) of the code of Criminal Procedure and the notification did not suffer from any deficiency. The

finding of the trial court that J&K PRC Act 1963 being a special act, it everrides the general law is also challenged on the ground that the same has

no application when the charge of forgery and prsonation is found established.

Refering to the notification SRO 133 of 1991 the learned trial court while referring to the annexure to the notification observed as under:

As per annexure ""A"" to the notification the following offences under the RPC are cognizable by the Crime Branch, Jammu:

(II)(a) Counterfeiting coins, note forgery and professional poisoning, falling in ChapterXVIII.Sections 463 to 477A to 489E.326 and 328 RPC.

The other offences categorised under the said annexures are not relevant in the present case and as such need not be reflected in the order. The

plain reading of the offences falling under annexureA(ii) Subclause(a) it is only the offences regarding counterfeitin coins, note forgery, and

professional poisoning which are cognizable by the Police Station Crime Branch. The present challan is not for any case of counter feiting coins,

note forgery or professional poisoning falling under Sections 467,468,471 RPC. Since the offences for which the charge sheet has been filed by

the Police Station Crime Branch do not pertain to the matter concerning counterfeiting, note forgery and professional poisoning, no investigation

could be conducted by the Police Station Crime Branch and no cognizance could be taken by the court on the basis of such charge sheet since the

investigation had not been conducted by a Police Station competent to take cognizance in the matter.

This approach however, is not in confirmity with the notification. Column 1 of the annexure is not exhaustive of the offences which are to be

investigated by the Crime Branch. It has to be read in conjuction with column2 where sections of the RFC and various other Acts have been

specifically mentioned. But column2 of the annexure has been completely ignored by the learned trial court. Chapter XVIII of the panel code deals

with the offences relating to documents and property marks. This chapter comprises of Sections 463 to 489E. But Crime Branch has been

empowered to investigate offences only under section 463 to 477A and 489A to 489E. Surprisingly, this aspect of the case has not been even

noticed by the learned Session Judge before refusing to take cognizance of the case. Even while reading itemII(a) in first column of the Schedule

undue emphasis has been placed on the word ""note forgery"" because counterfeiting, coining and note are seperate from the word forgery.

5 Since forgery is defined under Section 463 but made punishable under sections 465 to 477A of Rambir Panel Code depending upon the facts

constituting the offence, the cour should have relied on second column of the schedule where particular sections of the panel code are specifically

mentioned. There was thus absolutely no scope for interpreting itemII(a) of the schedule without referring to the second column. It is this approach

which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.

Another finding returned by the learned court is that the offnece if any committed by the accused is punishable under section 7 of the J&K PRC

Act, 1963. The section reads as under:

Offences Any person who, for the purpose of procuring anything to be done or not to be done under this Act, knowingly makes any

representation which is false in material particulars shall, on conviction by a (Judicial Magistrate) of 1st. Class, be punishable with imprisonment for

a terms which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both; Provided that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under

this Act, save upon a complaint made by a public servant with previous sanction of the Revenue Minister.

So what this section contemplates is a false representation and no cheating by impersonation as defined under section 416 which is punishable

under Section 419 RPC. Moreover as per the allegations cheating by impersonation was carried out by forging the signatures of the person whom

the accused personated. He may have even sworn affidavit in the same manner, so it is not a simple false representation but whole some of facts

which have to be considered at the time of framing charges, however, it is entirely for the trial court to appreciate the material collected by the

investigating police officer to find out which of the offences are primafacie made out.

in view of the above, it was wrong on the part of the learned Ist.Additional sessions Judge to have taken such a narrow view of the notification

SRO 133 of(1991 and come to a conclusion which is erroneous which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, it is accordingly set aside with

a direction to readmitd the challan to its original number and proceed to decide it in accordance with law with reasonable dispatch. I make the

order accodingly.