B.P. BANSAL Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by three Advocates of Ludhiana under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the validity of order dated May 23, 2005 (annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana while deciding a revision petition titled Mohinder Kumar v. B.P. Bansal and others. Vide order dated May 23, 2005, annexur P-5, the revisional Court has set aside the order dated February 7, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, dismissing the criminal complaint filed by the respondent at summoning stage.

(2.) FOR the just decision of this petition, a reference to the relevant facts is necessary. The respondent-Mohinder Kumar had filed a complaint dated August 28, 2004 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on September 24, 2004, alleging that the petitioners in the capacity as Advocates had committed fraud by signing for one another in Labour-cum-Conciliation Office, Circle 6, Ludhiana, whereas they were not even permitted by law under Rule 36 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to be present for conciliation. The signatures given in documents in Labour Court by petitioner B.P. Bansal and Manoj Bansal do not match with the signatures of authorization letter submitted before the Labour Officer, Circle 6, Ludhiana. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide order dated February 7, 2005 dismissed the complaint (Annexure P-3). A perusal of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, indicates that the Additional CJM, who was Illaqa Magistrate of Police Station Division No. 5, had called for the report of SHO on application of the complainant-respondent. The SHO had recorded the statement of complainant-respondent on September 16, 2004. In his statement, the respondent had stated that he was Surgeon in Mohan Dai Hospital since August 4, 1995. He had gone to Saudi Arabia on July 3, 1999, after giving leave application. On May 8, 2000 he came hack but was not allowed to enter the Hospital regarding which his case is pending in the Labour Court. In Labour Court, petitioners B.P. Bansal, Rajneesh Bansal and Manoj Bansal, appeared as Advocates against him on behalf of owners of the Hospital. Power of Attorneys were filed before Labour Court with their signatures made in presence of complainant and Judge Sh. A.K. Singla. These signatures do not tally. Petitioner-B.P. Bansal, Advocate of Labour cases also made a statement to the police and stated that he is an Advocate of Mohan Dai Hospital before the Labour Court. The respondent Dr. Mohinder Kumar had filed the case and the petitioners has appeared against him in the Labour Office and Labour Court. The leave of respondent for one month was rejected. He had left India for Saudi Arabia. The respondent had served in Paha Hospital where also he had a dispute with the Management and was removed on September 13, 2004. It is reflected from the order that the police had arrived at a conclusion that the signatures of Advocates on Vakalat Nama and signatures appended by them in presence of the Court of Sh. A.K. Singla, do not tally. The SHO had recommended for filing of the complaint because police had nothing to do in this regard. After the police had concluded that the allegations in the complaint were incorrect and recommended filing of the complaint, the respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, with the allegations that on March 7, 2003 Manoj Bansal, petitioner No. 3 appeared before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Ludhiana and gave an authority letter on which he did signatures for B.P. Bansal-petitioner No. 1 and Rajneesh Bansal, petitioner No. 2 in presence of complainant aid prayed that the Court should prosecute the petitioners for forgery. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana, Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh vide order dated February 7, 2005 dismissed the compliant filed by the respondent forming an opinion that even if for the sake of argument it was admitted that signatures of Advocates on documents filed before the Labour Court and on the documents filed before Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, are different, the same did not cause any loss to the respondent nor caused any wrong to the Advocates as such the necessary ingredients of forgery under Section 463 IPC were not made out, as all the three Advocates were authorized by the Management to appear in the Court and anyone of the three could get his presence marked. The complaint was dismissed vide order dated February 7, 2005. Copy of the order dismissing the complaint of the respondent is annexure P-3 dated February 7, 2005. The respondent was not satisfied with the order of dismissal of his complaint annexure P-3, therefore, he preferred a revision petition against the order dated February 7, 2005 passed by Sh. Sangeet Pal Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana.

(3.) SO far as the complaint moved by respondent dated December 16, 2004 is concerned, this Court is not concerned with the same as counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said complaint has also been dismissed after the remand. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the revisional Court has, without jurisdiction relegated the respondent to seek the remedy by filing a compliant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not a Court for the purpose of provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 188 and a Division bench judgment of Patna High Court in R.S. Murthy v. R.K. Naug and another, 1976 II LLJ 53.