Criminal Application No.3387 of 2005

17th October, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Shri N.L. JADHAV
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. B.B. GUNJAL

Cases Cited:
Brijendrakumar Vs. Prakash & ors, 1984 CRI.L.J. 421 [Para 5,7]
Thomas Jacob Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1418 [Para 5]
Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1972 SC 2598 [Para 5]
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., 2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1=AIR 1992 SC 604 [Para 9]
M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque & ors., 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3462 (S.C.) =AIR 2005 SC 9 [Para 9]

JUDGMENT

A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. :- Heard. Rule was issued in this matter on 20.4.2007. The applicant, Advocate Mohan Premnath Kothimbire, is practicing in Additional Sessions Court, Omerga. He has been arrayed as accused No.7 in R.C.C. No.11/2005, pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga arising out of Crime registered as F.I.R. No.79/2003, dated 3.4.2003, at Police Station, Omerga. Charge sheet filed is under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

2. Case of the prosecution as appearing from the F.I.R. read with the charge sheet is as under :-

(a) One Rajendra Tulshiram Thakur along with villagers from Gunjoti Sajja, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad had on 6.3.2003, met Talathi of Gunjoti Sajja Shri Jayant Shripati Gaikwad (accused No.5), for taking copies of 7/12 extracts. It transpired that, accused No.1 Bhausaheb Baburao Ingole, accused No.2 Vyankat Shankar Giri and accused No.3 Sanjay Sidram Deshmukh had gone to the Talathi Office 5-6 months earlier and had taken 7/12 extracts of the farmers, and on the basis of 7/12 extracts, solvency certificate was got prepared and was filed in the office of Commissioner (Revenue) at Pune, and on the land of the farmers charge was created. Rajendra Thakur and the farmers questioned accused No.3 Talathi Jayant as to how without telling the farmers concerned, the 7/12 extracts were issued and panchanamas regarding capacity were drawn and charge created. It was learnt that, on the request of accused Nos.1, the 7/12 extracts were given and charge created.

(b) Rajendra Thakur, on request of those farmers, checked further and it was found that, against properties of each of the farmers, charge to the extent of Rs.1,50,420/- had been created. The farmers checked the affidavits in the records and noted that they did not have their signatures or thumb impressions.

(c) On 2.4.2003, Rajendra Thakur, along with farmers (1) Narsing Gyanba Suryawanshi, (2) Uddhav Shripati Pawar, (3) Vasant Raghuram Ingole, (4) Sudhakar Raghuram Ingole, (5) Ramkrishna Vyasacharya Agnihotri, (6) Kurappa Bargali Dudhbhate and (7) Vishwanath Sidhappa Kadere, signed and filed complaint with P.I., Police Station, Omerga complaining that bogus solvency certificates on the strength of 7/12 extracts had been taken and charge created although these signatory farmers had not taken any certificate, but accused No.3 Sanjay Deshmukh of Mangalwar Peth, Solapur had committed the mischief so as to get licence of contracts of Tadi (Toddy). Thus, the complaint to take action against accused No.3 Sanjay and all others who helped them. In the complaint, two of the persons referred as other persons who helped were mentioned as accused No.2 Venkat Giri and accused No.1 Bhausaheb Ingole.

(d) The offence was registered on 3.4.2003 and investigation was taken up. Police seized register, through which the 7/12 extracts had been taken, which showed accused No.1 signing as "B.B. Ingole" had received the 7/12 extracts. Statements of witnesses were recorded on 4.4.2003. Police took up the matter with the office of Tahsildar, Omerga as well as the Collector, Osmanabad. Necessary documents were seized.

(e) In the course of investigation, further statements came to be recorded on 12.5.2004, in which involvement of other accused was found. It was also found in the investigation that, it was the applicant, who as Advocate, had identified the farmers in affidavits which had been filed. On completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

3. Applicant has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). He has referred to the investigation and is pointing to the supplementary statements, where the allegations are made that he had given identification and signed the documents for obtaining the solvency certificate and had cooperated with accused No.4 Shivaji Ibhate. The ground raised is that, there is no allegation, that he had gone to the Talathi or that he had submitted the alleged solvency for obtaining contract of Toddy. The only allegations are that he had given identification on paper for obtaining of the solvency. According to the applicant, this does not constitute even prima facie an offence. There is no material to show that there was any meeting of mind to commit a crime and that the applicant was member of any such meeting so as to attract Section 34 of the IPC for him. He is an Advocate and has not caused any wrongful loss to another person or any wrongful gain to himself and merely allegation of identification is not sufficient to involve him in the crime. The applicant has prayed that the F.I.R. and the criminal proceedings as regards him may be quashed and set aside.

4. We have heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as the learned A.P.P. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that merely because the applicant, as an Advocate, identified the persons, introduced to him as particular farmers, that by itself does not make him liable for crime if those persons did not turn out to be the real persons. Against this, learned A.P.P. has supported the case of prosecution, holding the applicant responsible for identifying persons who were not the real farmers.

5. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to law as appearing from some of the rulings.

(a) In the matter of Brijendrakumar Vs. Prakash & ors, reported in 1984 CRI.L.J. 421, there was identification of surety by Advocate, who turned out to be not the person identified. In that matter, registered Clerk of one Advocate Dave from Wardha introduced a person to Advocate Brijendrakumar for the purposes of standing surety and the Advocate had identified the person Janardhan Kolhe introduced to him, endorsing that he knows the person who has been introduced by the Clerk of Advocate Dave. It happened that the accused subsequently remained absent and when notice was issued, the real Janardhan Kolhe appeared and disowned the documents or that he even knew the accused. In the set of facts, the matter was examined by learned Single Judge of this High Court and it was observed (in para No.14) as under :

"14. . .. . . . it may be said that identification of an individual on an affidavit by a counsel is a matter of serious concern and the Advocate concerned should not lightly endorse the identification certificate without first satisfying himself about the identity of the person. However, in dealing with a case of the nature as the instant one, I am not inclined to go into the ethics of the responsibility to be followed by the Advocate at the time of identification, but I am only supposed to see whether it discloses any criminal misconduct and criminal intention on the part of the Advocate in identifying a false person. . . . . .."

It was further observed in para No.19 as under:

"19. .......... There is no basis for the allegation that the applicant- accused had identified a person falsely knowing that the person being identified was not that person and further there is no substance in the allegations that the accused- applicant tendered such false person before the Clerk Shri Pawade for the purpose of identification. In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case where inherent power can be invoked to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court to meet the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of the process of law."

(b) In yet another matter of Thomas Jacob Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1418, it was found that the person who stood surety had impersonated for the purpose of bail. The Advocate concerned came to be prosecuted. He filed Writ Petition. Learned Single Judge of this Court considered the argument that the Advocate - petitioner in that matter was approached by one Abdul Kadar, claiming to be cousin of the accused Usman and said Abdul Kadar brought surety by name Chandubhai Desai, who produced relevant documents like ration card, P.F. Slip etc. It was observed in para No.6 as under :

"6. In the instant case I find that the petitioner- Advocate has no doubt identified the surety, but that itself would not constitute an offence as he had identified the surety on the basis of representation made by his client one Abdul Kadar who brought the surety to him. The mere act of the petitioner- Advocate in taking steps for expediting the process of the surety application does not per se indicate any intention on his part to cheat and/or hatching a conspiracy to cheat the Registrar."

(c) In this regard, an important matter is the case of Hiralal Jain Vs. Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2598. There, the appellant Hiralal Jain, an Advocate along with one Jhumman Singh and others, was committed to the Court of Sessions for offence under Section 120-B, read with Sections 419, 420, 511, 467 read with 471 of the IPC. In that matter, in a reference, compensation amount had been deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector for payment to one Rattan Singh Nand Lal and others. It was alleged that, in July 1964, the accused persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy to obtain amount by fraud, forgery and impersonation and with this purpose, the appellant Hiralal had filed Vakalatnama and application was filed purporting to be of Rattan Singh and others with the appellant as their counsel. The appellant had verified and identified Nand Lal as the claimant and that he was personally knowing him and even mentioned that he will be responsible in case of wrong payment. It happened that, real Rattan Singh appeared and facts came to light and encashment of some vouchers was stopped while some had got encashed. Against charge sheet filed and its committal, the appellant Hiralal had moved High Court of Delhi, but did not get relief and filed the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court, after examining the matter, observed in para No.9 as under :

"9. Admittedly, the appellant has neither impersonated nor committed any forgery. The real charge against him is that of conspiracy under S.120-B IPC. But there is no prima facie evidence in respect of this charge. The documentary evidence only shows that the appellant made application on behalf of the other accused, that he filed his Vakalatnamas and that he identified them as the real claimants. It is well known that the income of many lawyers in the District Courts is derived from the work of identifying persons and sureties in the Courts. The other accused must have told the appellant that they were the real claimants. He believed them and agreed to act for them. It seems to us that he did nothing beyond what a lawyer is authorized to do in a Court of Law. There is no evidence to suggest that he had previous knowledge of the fact that the accused were not the rightful claimants. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any concert between him and the other accused antecedent to the filing of the applications and Vakalatnamas in Court by him.

In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that there is prima facie evidence for the offence of conspiracy against him." In the concerned matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the appellant being engaged by the accused for their identification, was not an incriminating evidence for the offence of conspiracy.

6. Keeping in view the law as appearing from the judgments referred, specially of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now the present matter needs to be appreciated. In the charge sheet, apart from the villagers, there is statement of one Chandrakant Eknathrao Jadhav, who claims to have been working as labour in the office of Talathi, Gunjoti Sajja. His statement dated 4.4.2003 shows that, between 6.7.2003 to 27.7.2003, accused No.1 Bhausaheb had come asking for the 7/12 extracts of the six farmers mentioned and he had asked him to meet the Talathi (accused No.5 Jayant). Accused No.1 Bhausaheb had taken those 7/12 extracts from the Talathi and that farmers concerned themselves had not come. He had taken the entries in the concerned record and Talathi had signed it regarding giving of the 7/12 extract in the register. Accused No. 1 Bhausaheb Ingole had signed the register for receipt of the 7/12 extract. Statement of Chandrakant shows, Senior Clerk in their office (accused No.4) Shivaji Ibhate took interest to get prepared panchanamas of the fields without going there. The statement is that the panchanamas were got prepared at the instance of accused Nos.4 to 6. Accused No.6 was also Talathi. The statement dated 4.4.2003 gives details as to how the solvencies were got prepared. Statement claims that the Senior Clerk (Accused No.4) Ibhate wanted to help his relative from Aland Taluka to get licence of Toddy shop and hence, the efforts. In the supplementary statement dated 12.5.2004, Chandrakant referred to some more facts and it is mentioned that accused No. 3 Shivaji Ibhate received help from accused No.7 Mohan Premnath Kothimbire (present applicant - Advocate) as some other persons were made to stand and identified as the concerned farmers and their identity was shown and signature of the Advocate taken. Statement is that, because of such signatures, (accused No.4) Shivaji Ibhate got help from the applicant. The sentence used in the statements in this regard is a compound sentence, but the gist that appears is that, accused No.4 Shivaji got help because of the identification endorsed by the applicant. (Accused No.4) Shivaji Ibhate was employee at the office of Tehsil concerned.

7. What appears is that, on the Senior Clerk Ibhate requesting, applicant Advocate identified the persons for the purpose of affidavits. As responsible person, he should have taken precaution to satisfy himself by asking for identification proofs and record basis of identity. Had he followed guidance as recorded in the matter of "Brijendrakumar" (supra), present embarrassing proceeding could have been avoided. Casually recording identification without recording source can expose the Advocate to risk in case investigation brings on record material of conspiracy or common intention. Be that as it may, here our concern is to see whether from the facts emerging from the investigation if prima facie criminal case is made out.

8. Going through the whole charge sheet, there does not appear any material to show that the applicant, an Advocate, entered into any conspiracy with any of the other accused in getting prepared solvency certificates without letting the real farmers know that any such 7/12 extracts are being taken from the Talathi or the solvency certificate is being taken. There is no material to show that the applicant was acting in furtherance of common intention with any of the accused so as to rope him in the matter with the help of Section 34 of IPC. Other than the applicant endorsing the affidavits for identifying the persons, there is no material to show that the applicant was knowing that the persons were somebody else and still identifying them as the concerned farmer. Identification of a person per se is not incriminating to either show conspiracy or that the Advocate was acting in furtherance of common intention. Unless the investigation shows material collected clearly pointing out that the Advocate was purposely identifying a wrong person or had knowledge that the person was not the real person or that he had any concert with other accused persons to cheat or commit forgery, the prosecution cannot be maintained keeping in view observations of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

9. Even the uncontroverted allegations in the charge sheet do not disclose commission of offence by the applicant. Even if charge sheet is taken on its face value, prima facie same does not constitute offence against the applicant. Keeping in view observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 : [2013 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1], as well as M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque & ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 9 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3462 (S.C.)], it would be appropriate to interfere in the matter so as to prevent abuse of the process of Court.

10. In the result, Criminal Application is allowed. The charge sheet qua the applicant Advocate Mohan s/o Premnath Kothimbire is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Application allowed.