ATTAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 3881-M and 3924-M of 1984. The facts giving rise thereto are almost identical, so are the law points and relief sought.

(2.) There are two prosecutions which are pending in the file of Judicial Magistrate Ist. Class, Hoshiarpur. They arose out of two incidences of the same date i.e. December 18, 1980. It is alleged that one Virender Kumar on December 18, 1980, got two deeds of power of attorney forged, one at Ballabgarh in Haryana and the other at Delhi. At Ballabgarh, he got a deed written from a professional Deed-Writer posing himself to be one Indivar Kumar, a cosharer in some agricultural land in village Patiarni, Tehsil and District Hoshiapur. The general attorney appointed was Virender Kumar, i.e. he himself. The deed was witnessed by Bani Singh Tewatia, Advocate, and one Puran Chand. Bani Singh Tewatia, Advocate, is petitioner in criminal Misc. No. 3924-M of the 1984. Similarly, on the same date at Delhi he impersonated himself as Neeraj Kumar, another co-sharer of village Patiarni, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, got a power of attorney drafted from Attar Chand, Advocate, and got it typed from a professional Deed-Writer, so as to confer power on Virender Kumar i.e. he himself, as the attorney. The deed was witnessed by Attar Chand, Advocate, and his clerk K. R. Karup. Attar Chand, Advocate, is petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. 3881-M of 1984.

(3.) The matter was brought to the notice of the police by yet another co-sharer V. K. Sood. Thereupon investigations commenced. Finally prosecutions were launched against Virender Kumar in both cases, but conjunctively against Bani Singh Tewatia, Advocate, and Puran Chand in relation to the crime committed at Ballabgarh and against Attar Singh Advocate and K. R. Karup for the crime committed at Delhi. It was also discovered that using those two deeds of power of attorney, Virender Kumar had effected sales of properties belonging to Indivar Kumar and Neeraj Kumar co-sharers. Thus, on November 11, 1983, the trial Magistrate passed two identical orders on each file, observing that prima facie Virender Kumar, the main accused, had forged a general power of attorney and Puran Chand and Bani Singh Tewatia, Advocate, in one case, and Attar Singh, Advocate, and K. R. Karup in the other were in conspiracy with him. Thus, he ordered Virender Kumar to be charged under Ss.467, 468, 471 and 120-B, Indian Panal Code, and the respective remaining two accused in each case for offences under S. 468 read with Ss. 109/120-B, Indian Penal Code. As a follow-up measure on November 12, 1983, the learned Magistrate framed charges against Virender Kumar in both the cases. When put to him, Virender Kumar pleaded guilty to the charges and pleaded for mercy. Then on November 12, 1983, the learned Magistrate passed identical orders, in passing various terms of imprisonment against Virender Kumar accused. Significantly, in those charges Virender Kumar had not been accused of any charge of conspiracy under S. 120-B, Indian Penal Code, having any suggested connection with the remaining two co-accused. It is later on March 26, 1984, that the learned Magistrate, who, too (by then a new incumbent), framed identical charges against the remaining two sets of accused not only under S. 468, Indian Penal Code, but under S. 467, Indian Penal Code as well, and additionally, under Ss. 109 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. It is to challenge these orders of charge and the proceedings that the two advocates have in their respective petitions, approached this Court under S. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.