BALARAM PRASAD BASU MALLIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the accused -petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 19. 9. 1983 by which charges have been framed against the accused -petitioner under Sections 419, 420 and 471, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner in the F. I. R. lodged by the Vigilance Inspector are to the effect that the petitioner submitted forged certificate stating that he had passed the Diploma Examination conducted by the City and Guilds of London Institute at Calcutta and on the basis of the said certificate he managed to get an appointment as an Overseer in the Electricity Department of the Government of Orissa on 25. 11. 1966 although he had not passed any such examination as alleged and on the basis of that the petitioner is continuing in service. After necessary investigation, charge -sheet was filed in the case on 12. 1. 1983 and the learned Magistrate after consideration of all the papers, framed charges against the petitioner by order dated 19. 9. 1983. This order of the learned Magistrate is being impugned in this miscellaneous case.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however, urges that on the materials available on. record, the Magistrate has been satisfied as to the existence of a prima facie case under Sections 419, 420 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and it would not be appropriate for the High Court at this stage to interfere with the said order since the allegations in the F. I. R. do make out a prima facie case of offence being committed under Sees. 419, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He further urges that the offence in question is a continuing one since the forgery perpetrated by the petitioner continues in force and, therefore, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. He also urges that in view of the nature of the offence which was actually unearthed after lapse of fifteen years, it would not be a sound exercise of judicial discretion to quash the proceedings as that would amount to giving premium to a forger. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not intended to be invoked in such cases.