MANORANJAN KHATUA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Cuttack, taking cognizance of offences under Ss. 466, 471 and 419 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) against him.

(2.) Facts may be narrated in brief. One Abhiram Mohanty said to be a notorious dacoit was arrested and was in jail custody in connection with G.R. Case Nos. 1419 of 1981, and 73, 235 and 549 of 1982 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. He was granted bail and for the purpose of release, he was required to furnish bail bonds with two sureties for the bail amount subject to the satisfaction of the Court. The petitioner was one of the counsel appearing for Abhiram Mohanty in those cases. The person who was looking after the cases on his behalf arranged two sureties, one of whom was stated to be one Jadu Behera, son of Ratha Behera of village Palasia, P.S. Choudwar, district, Cuttack. Document such as, record of rights and rent receipts etc. stood in the name of the said Jadu Behera and in view of such documents, the petitioner identified him as one of the sureties not only in the bail bonds, but also in the affidavit. The bail bonds and the affidavit were filed in the Court for the purpose of passing the release order. The release order, however, could not be passed, because the said accused was also involved in another case pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, in which bail was not granted. Subsequently, however, it transpired that Jadu Behera was not the real surety. He did not produce documents, did not sign the bail bonds and also did not swear the affidavit. Somebody else impersonated him, forged the documents, swore a false affidavit and cheated the Court for the purpose of release of the accused. The petitioner being an advocate attested the signatures of the impersonator and identified him as the real person, namely, Jadu Behera in the bail bonds and in the affidavit. He played an important role for securing illegal release of the accused on the basis of forged and fabricated documents as also by identification of a person whom impersonated another innocent man. All these facts came to the notice of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Sadar), Cuttack, who submitted an F.I.R. on 11-1-1983 at Lalbag Police Station in consequence of which the petitioner was arrested and subsequently he was released on bail by the Court. The case was investigated against him and another surety named, Nakula Palai whose identity, however, was not in dispute and a charge-sheet under Ss. 466,471 and 419 read with S.34, I.P.C. was filed.

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the person who was looking after the case of Abhiram Mohanthy produced two sureties both of whom disclosed their names as Jadu Behera, son of Ratha Behera of village Palasia, P.S. Choudwar, District Cuttack and Nakula Palai, son of late Basu Palai of Dagarpara, P.S. Lalbag, District Cuttack. Both of them produced documents. showing that they had landed property. The petitioner had no scope to doubt the identity of the persons and in good faith not only he attested their signatures in the bail bonds, but also identified them in the affidavit. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also verified the documents and was satisfied that they were real persons in possession of documents having immovable property and were solvent as sureties. That being the position, there was no scope for the learned Court below to take cognizance of the offences against him.