MANSA RAM Vs. STATE U.T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is facing trial in the Court of the chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and he stands charged under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He has challenged his prosecution by way of this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) MR . H.S. Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, canvassed that the petitioner is a retired Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent of Police and is an old man and that the proceedings cannot continue against him as he only identified the signatures of Pal Singh and Madan Mohan on two different financial guarantee deeds, and the same were attested by Shri Hoshiar Singh, who was then functioning as Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh.

(3.) I do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Brar. The petitioner is an old man and he does not practice in the court. It is stated at the Bar that he only sits in front of the Estate Office and identifies the persons. There is nothing on the record to show that he was in conspiracy with the co-accused. Mr Brar could not show me any material on the record regarding the conspiracy or preconcert. In Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration, 1973 P.L.R. 121 (S.C.), it was observed by their Lordship of the Supreme Court as under:-