MOHANLAL MAGANLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Revision Application No. 378 of 1964 I passed the following order :-

(2.) I am therefore of the view that this is not a matter to which Article 134 of the Constitution would apply because under that Article there must be a judgment final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court before that Article can apply. I am therefore of the opinion that Art. 134 of the Constitution does not apply to my order.

(3.) DIVAN J. The petitioner in this Criminal Application is the original accused. He is an Advocate practising at Baroda. In the course of his professional work the petitioner appeared for accused persons who were ordered to be released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Third Court Baroda. One person purporting to be Udesing Abhesing stood surety for the two accused persons who were ordered to be released on bail and the petitioner identified the surety at the time when the said person made an affidavit and executed the bail bond in connection with the bail. The surety was accepted and the two accused were released on bail. Thereafter one of the two accused persons thus released on bail absented himself on three consecutive hearings from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate and thereupon a notice was issued to the surety Udesing Abhesing. In response to the said notice Udesing appeared before the learned Magistrate and contended that he had not become surety for the two accused persons and denied having executed any bail-bond for the accused who had remained absent. In the proceedings before the learned Magistrate it came out that some one had impersonated Udesing Abhesing in the matter of making an affidavit and executing the bail bond. Thereupon the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner in connection with his identification of the surety Udesing Abhesing. The petitioner filed a reply and ultimately the learned Magistrate decided that a complaint should be filed against the petitioner in respect of offences punishable under secs. 205 467 and 468 all read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code as according to the learned Magistrate a prima facie case had been established against the petitioner. By his order dated August 31 1963 the learned Magistrate ordered that a complaint be filed against the petitioner for having committed an alleged offence under sec. 205 read with sec. 114 sec. 467 read with sec. 114 and sec. 468 read with sec. 114 of the I.P.C. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Session at Baroda and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed that appeal on the ground that as the complaint had not yet been filed the appeal was incompetent. Thereafter the complaint was filed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and punishable under the sections mentioned above. After the complaint was filed the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge and the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge Baroda who disposed of this appeal partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under secs. 467 and 468 both read with sec. 114 I.P.C. However the learned Judge confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate directing the prosecution of the petitioner in respect of the offence punishable under sec. 205 read with sec. 114 of the I.P.C. It is against this order passed in these criminal proceedings that Criminal Revision Application No. 378 of 1964 was filed in this High Court. At the admission stage it was placed before me and I admitted the matter and issued rule. The Revision Application came up for final hearing before my learned brother Raju J. On January 11 1965 and my learned brother was of the view that this was a matter in which Court should never interfere in revision and he therefore dismissed the revision application. The present Criminal Application has been taken out for a certificate under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India that this case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.