NARESH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed Under Section 561-A Cr. PC by the applicants Naresh Chandra Agarwal and Gauri Shanker for quashing the proceedings pending against them in the court of the Special Magistrate, U. P. at Lucknow in a case Under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 474 and 466 read with Section 109, IPC The applicants were said to have entered into a conspiracy and were engaged in selling forged railway tickets for Bombay and Mathura from Delhi. The other three accused were Jugraj Singh, Ganga Mani Dube and Sheo Pd. Trivedi, Jugraj Singh was actually found selling a ticket for Rs. 780/- to a witness. The printing material, machine, dye etc. were said to be recovered from the house of the co-accused Ganga Mani Dnbey. The case was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, The offence was committed at Kanpur. After completing the investigation, the Special Police had submitted a charge sheet Under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 474 and 466 read with Section 109, I. P- C on 1-1-1973 in the court of the Special Magistrate U. P. at Lucknow. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class had been empowered by a Government notification to try cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment at Lucknow. There was thus a Special Magistrate appointed under the old Or, P. C. Gr. Misc. No. 639 of 1973 (All) had been filed by Ganga Mani Dubey and Sheo Pd. Trivedi mainly on the ground that the sanction Under Section 196-A (2) of the Cr. PC had not been obtained-This petition was dismissed by Bakshi, J. on 28-1-1976. The present petition was then filed on 8-7-1976 by the other accused persons namely, Naresh Chandra Agarwal and Gauri Shanker, Besides repeating grounds taken in the earlier petition (Cr. Misc. No. 639 of 1973) they have also taken a ground that investigation itself was defective and no permission Under Section 155 (2) Cr. PC had been obtained. Another ground taken is that the Notification issued under the new Cripc empowering Sri Ram Prasad Sri-vasrava, (Chief Judicial Magistrate) and subsequently Sri Y. S. Raizada, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate taking the cases investigated by the special police establishment do not cover the case of the applicants under the old Code,

(2.) SO far the first two grounds are concerned, the matter should be deemed to be concluded by the decision of this Court dated 28-1-1976 in Cri. Misc, Case No. 639 of 1973 (All ). Bakshi, J. placed reliance on the case of Bhanwar Singh v, State of Rajas-than in which according to the Head Note he following observations were made. No sanction is necessary Under Section 196-A ) Cr. PC when the object of the conspiacy is to commit the offence of cheating (Section 420, I. P. C ). but forgery of documents (Section 467 IPC) and similar non-cognizable offences are also committed as merely steps taken by one or other of the accused for the urpose of effecting the main object of the conspiracy. A trial in such circumstances for offences Under Sections 120-B read with Ss, 467/ 471 and 420, I. P. C without obtaining sanction, is neither illegal nor void.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has placed on the case of Madan Lai v. State of Punjab in which it was held that the court can proceed to try cognizable offences and may not try non-cognizable offences when no sanction had been obtained for the same under Section 196 (A) Cr. PC But in that case the offences were separate. In the present case the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in (Supra) will apply. learned counsel for the applicants has also argued that no offence Under Section 420 IPC is made out. When the forged tickets were sold and other persons were induced to part with the money on the basis of the forged tickets, I see no reason why the offence under Section 420, I. P, C. is not made out. In any view of the matter, this can be agitated before the trial court and cannot be looked into in a petition Under Section 561-A Cr. P. C In fact, the present petition should have been Under Section 482 Cr. PC as it was filed after the coming into force of the new. Cr. P. C. However, I have treated this petition as one Under Section 482 Cr. PC As regards Section 155 (2) Cr. PC the police can certainly investigate even if there is a single cognizable offence.