BANARSI DASS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Banarsi Dass Sharma, practising as an Advocate at Muktsar in district Faridkot, has sought the quashing of the charge framed against him under section 120 -B, Indian Penal Code, by the Court of Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, on August 7, 1986 (Annexure P. 2).

(2.) ONE Gurmail Singh was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 3000/ - by the Tehsildar, Muktsar, for repairing his house. Shri Mangat Ram stood surety for him to ensure the return of the loan. The surety bond was attested by the petitioner Banarsi Dass Sharma. Subsequently it was found that the said Gurmail Singh was not traceable and that the surety Mangat Ram did not own any property. The Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot, therefore, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, City Muktsar, alleging that Gurmail Singh, Mangat Ram and the Petitioner Banarsi Dass Sharma had conspired to cheat the State Government and that the first two named persons had actually committed the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was charged of committing an offence under section 120 -B. Indian Penal Code.

(3.) RELYING upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Hira Lal Jain v. Delhi Administration, (1973) 75 PLR 121, this Court held in Attar Chand v. The State of Punjab, 1986(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 211 : 1986(1) PLR 55, that identification of a person before a Court or Authority is per se incriminating evidence for the offence, of conspiracy unless there could be evidence of some, antecedent, behaviour showing some concern or connection between the lawyer and the principal accused. In the present case the only allegation against the petitioner is he had attested the surety bond furnished by Mangat Ram accused) It is not even alleged that there was some antecedent behaviour of the petitioner pointing to his having committed an offence of conspiracy. The case of Attar Chand (supra) fully covers the facts of this case.