BRIJENDRAKUMAR Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is a practising advocate at Wardha, while the non-applicant 1 was functioning as a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Wardha and non-applicant 2 is the registered clerk of another advocate Shri Dave from Wardha. Non-applicant 3 is the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) In Criminal Case No. 237 of 1976 under the Bombay Prohibition Act pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha, the accused Manohar was represented by advocate Shri Dave. At the material time in July, 1976 Shri Meshram who was the Judge presiding over the said Court, had ordered release of accused Manohar on bail on his executing a surety for Rs. 500/- with P. R. Bond in the like amount. However, on 3-7-1976 on which date the surety was to be furnished in the Court, the counsel of the accused Shri Dave was out of station. The non-applicant 2 Baban was the registered clerk of Shri Dave advocate. He prepared an affidavit of the surety and an application of the surety. The surety named in the said application and affidavit was one Janardhan Murari Kolhe, resident of Nan-bardi. However, the affidavit had to be endorsed by an advocate to identify the person swearing the affidavit, that is to say, identification in respect of Janardhan Murari Kolhe was necessary. Non-applicant 2 Baban as registered clerk of Shri Dave requested the applicant Brijendrakumar Mishra, who is another advocate and known to Shri Dave to identify the surety on the affidavit so that the affidavit and the application could be approved without undue delay. The applicant, therefore, identified the surety. Initially the affidavit and the endorsement was written in the hand of the non-applicant 2 Baban. However, at the time of actually signing the said identification certificate, the applicant endorsed as follows : "I know Janardhan Murari Kolhe, resident of Nanbardi, introduced by Baban Ratnaparkhi clerk to Dave advocate." The applicant put his signature thereunder. The application for the surety and his affidavit were then tendered before Shri Pawade, who was at the material time Senior Clerk to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. On the basis of the identification made by the applicant advocate, the said Shri Pawade accepted the surety and the accused Manohar was thereafter released on bail.

(3.) It appears that after his release the accused Manohar remained absent. The trial court then issued notice to the surety Janardhan Kolhe. On 12-12-1980 the surety appeared before the Court and disclosed that he had never stood surety for accused Manohar; that he does not know accused Manohar and that the signatures on the application for surety and affidavit in support thereof are not his.