LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-425

SHAM LAL CHITTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On September 27, 2012
SHAM LAL CHITTI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sham Lal Chitti, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar in a case registered by way of FIR No. 271 dated 2.11.2004 at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar for an offence punishable under sections 419, 420 read with section 120-B IPC whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner, as also the order dated 21.1.2012 (Annexure P6) passed by learned revisional court vide which revision preferred by the petitioner against the order, Annexure P4, has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in a Session case No. 154 of 2003 , Lehmber Singh, an accused was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount on 12.4.2004. Kulwant Singh son of Shadi Ram stood surety for said Lehmber Singh posing himself as Bhana Ram, who happened to be his grandfather and had since died. According to him, the case against the petitioner is that he had identified said Kulwant Singh as Bhana Ram.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence of identifying a wrong person who stood surety for release of an accused on bail is an offence specifically falling under the provisions of section 205 IPC. According to him, cognizance of the offence under section 205 IPC or even section 120-B IPC which would be governed by the provisions of section 205 IPC, could not be taken except on a complaint of the court before whom wrong person was identified. He has submitted that in paragraphs No. 21 and 25, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down in C.Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 4 RCR(Cri) 268 that unless the offence made punishable under a provision, the cognizance of which cannot be taken as provided under section 195 Cr.P.C., the said provision cannot be evaded by describing the offence as covered by another section of the IPC where there is no such provision. According to him, it has also been held that in such a case, there must be a complaint by the public servant and the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory, non-compliance of which would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders.