EMPEROR Vs. GOURISHANKAR BOHIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been presented by the Local Government against an Order of the Sub-divisional Officer of Sambalpur Sadr granting permission to a complainant Rajnarayan Tewari and an accused Gouri Shankar Bohidar to compound an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by the latter. After giving this permission and accepting the petition of compromise the Magistrate acquitted the accused under section 345 (2), Criminal P.C. The nature of the case was cheating by means of a note doubling trick. The note doubler is said to have been a person named Zahir Singh also called Doubler Babu and the part played by Gouri Shankar Bohidar who was a local pleader is said to have been that he provided Zahir Singh with an introduction to prospective victims from among the pleader's own clients. Evidence of how Rajnarayan Tewari was so duped was before the Court and a charge had been framed. Among the witnesses examined there were two, namely, Radhashyam Agarwala, P.W. 2 and Sagarmal Modi, P.W. 12 who deposed that Gouri Shankar Bohidar had spoken to them also telling them that there was a man who could double notes and advising them to bring currency notes of their own for the purpose of doubling. That evidence no doubt was relevant for deciding, should the matter have been tried out, the question of the intention with which the accused acted there being, apparently some suggestion on the part of the defence that this accused was as innocent a dupe as the other victims. When the parties to the criminal case came before the Court to compromise, the Public Prosecutor objected on behalf of the Crown on the ground. that a gang consisting of Zahir Singh, the accused and others have in pursuance of a wide criminal conspiracy been operating in this town in doubling notes and cheating people for a long time. Information has also been received by the police that members of this gang have in pursuance of the conspiracy perpetrated similar heinous crimes in the neighbouring states and in the Central Provinces.

(2.) It was also said: "that now Zahir Singh has been arrested and framing of a charge under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code is necessary." The Magistrate in dealing with the petition and the objection observed that before him there was only one man alleged to have been, similarly cheated, that in his case no charge sheet had been submitted and that he did not see material on the record before him to justify his framing a charge of criminal conspiracy. But it was further urged before him that the trial of Zahir Singh who had been arrested would be rendered difficult if the case was compromised. He was not impressed by this argument observing: If the prosecution can adduce evidence of criminal conspiracy there would be no bar to the trial of Zahir Singh for that offence as the accused is not being acquitted of criminal conspiracy.

(3.) Against this order treating it as an order of discharge or of dismissal of complaint the Crown moved the Sessions Judge of Cuttack Sambalpur in revision under Section 435, Criminal P.C., asking for further enquiry on the ground that the Magistrate who as we have already seen framed a charge under Section 420 had also been asked to frame charge Under Section 120B/420 or Section 489A, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge thought that there were materials on the record if believed to justify a charge of conspiracy because he said there is evidence that Gouri Shankar Bohidar brought his partner to Sambalpur and kept him there. The learned Judge, however, declined to order further enquiry because he felt convinced that neither Gouri Shankar nor Zahir Singh his partner had any intention of really forging, producing and uttering counterfeit notes and that what had been done was a conspiracy to cheat and cheating and nothing more. Taking this view he declined to order further enquiry because he thought that after further enquiry is ordered into offences under Section 120B read with Section 420, the prosecution will immediately find itself in an insuperable difficulty because Gouri Shankar has already been acquitted under Section 420. Therefore, I am asked to order a further enquiry in which he will be charged with conspiracy to commit an offence of which he has already been acquitted. This the Sessions Judge thought would be contrary to Section 403, Criminal P. C. It was after the failure of this application that the Local Government decided to prefer the present appeal against the order of the Magistrate permitting the composition of the offence and acquitting the accused and also to make an application in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge refusing to direct further enquiry.