ASIT KUMAR BEHARA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are practicing Advocates of Udala Bar, have filed this application invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 14.2.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala in G.R. Case No. 211 of 2000 (T.C. No. 572/2002) rejecting their application for reconsideration of the order of cognizance dated 12.11.2002. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that one Sanatan Patra, is an accused in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 306, 498A/34, IPC. He filed an application for bail, which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala. Thereafter, he moved the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj and by order dated 7.9.2000 he was released on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety. He submitted bail bond in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala on 9.8.2000. One Manmath Nayak, son of Jagannath Nayak stood as surety for Sanatan Patra impersonating one Arjun Majhi, son of Late Ananta Majhi Petitioner No. 1, Asit Kumar Behera, on Advocate of Udala Bar, who was engaged as his advocate, furnished bail bond. On 7.9.2000 when he came to know from his Clerk that one Manmath Nayak impersonated himself as Arjun Majhi and stood as surety for the accused, he immediately filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate on 8.9.2000 stating that on good faith, he identified the signature of Arjun Majhi in the connected documents as per his self-introduction. On coming to know about such impersonation, he immediately instructed the accused to surrender before the Court and file fresh bail bond. He also filed a memo to that effect on the same date for furnishing fresh bail bond for the accused Sanatan Patra.

(2.) After surrender of Sanatan Patra, he was released on bail on furnishing fresh bond, but the learned Magistrate lodged information before the OIC, Udala Police Station on the allegation of impersonation of the bailor, Manmath Nayak, disclosing himself as Arjun Majhi, which was attested by his Advocate, petitioner No. 1. On receipt of the aforesaid information, the same was registered as Udala P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 211 of 2000. The Investigating Officer in course of investigation examined number of persons in connection with the case and ultimately submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and four others for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471/34, IPC and on that basis, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process vide order dated 12.11.2002. On receipt of the notice from the Court, the petitioners filed an application to reconsider the order of cognizance on the ground that accepting the entire case of the prosecution without adding or subtracting anything, it would be seen that no case is made out against them in any of the offences alleged. But the learned Magistrate rejected the said application on 14.2.2003, which is impugned in this application.

(3.) On perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no allegation against him and so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he was the conducting lawyer for accused Sanatan Patra and as such, when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj released him on bail of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety vide order dated 7.9.2000, Sri Patra submitted bail bond in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Udala on 9.8.2000. But the fact remains, one Manmath Nayak stood as surety for the accused Sanatan Patra in the name of Late Arjun Majhi, son of Late Ananta Majhi. When bail bond was filed, petitioner No. 1 had no occasion to know whether the surety was impersonated and when the matter was brought to his notice, immediately to show his bona fide, he filed an affidavit bringing the said fact to the notice of the learned Magistrate and also filed a memo furnishing fresh bail bond for the accused Sanatan Patra. On consideration of the same, learned Magistrate released the accused Sanatan Patra on fresh bail bond.