MISS. BANDANA MUNDRA Vs. SRINIBAS AGRAWAL @ NIWAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Dhal, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the opposite party though this matter was taken up yesterday and again today. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 10.8.1998 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in I.C.C. No. 13 of 1998 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 417, 418, 419, 468, 471, 109 of the Penal Code. The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint are as follows:

(2.) SHRI . Dhal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the present Petitioner is an Advocate and in course of professional work, he was requested by advocate Rabi Shankar Awasty to identify the person and also sign the document as a witness. Since the Petitioner knew Rabi Shanakar Awasty as an Advocate, he had no occasion to verify the identity of the person to whom he identified and in good faith did the identification as well as signed the document as a witness. According to Shri Dhal, there being no intention of cheating or committing forgery of document and the Petitioner having bona fide identified under the instruction of a brother advocate, the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences so far as the present Petitioner is concerned. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hirala Jain v. Delhi Administration reported in : AI.R. 1972 S.C. 2598. In the said decision the Appellant before the Apex Court was an Advocate. He along with some others had been committed to the Court of Sessions for commission of offences under Section 120 -B read with Sections 419, 420, 511, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. The Appellant approached the High Court for quashing the order of commitment and having failed, approached the Apex Court. The facts leading to the institution of the said case are that a piece of land situated in Delhi was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector made a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector also sent a cheque for the amount of compensation settled by him to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and the said Court directed payment of Rs. 4726.70. to each of the claimants. It is alleged that in July, 1964 the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain payment of the aforesaid amount by fraud, forgery and impersonation and filed applications through the Appellant. The applications were accompanied by vakalatnama filed by the Appellant. It was alleged that the accused other than the Appellant were the rightful claimants of the amount and the amount should be paid to them. Verification was also done by the Appellant.

(3.) SO far as the present case is concerned, more or less a similar situation arose. Though the power of attorney was drafted, typed and prepared in the office of Rabi Shankar Awasty, a brother advocate, this Petitioner only identified the executant and signed the document as a witness. Considering the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, I am of the view that no criminal liability can be attributed as the Petitioner was doing his professional work in good faith.