Mohan vs The State Of Maharashtra
2013 Latest Caselaw 32 Bom

                                                      Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005
                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                      
               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3387 OF 2005




                                             
     Mohan s/o Premnath Kothimbire
     Age major, Occupation Advocate,




                                            
     R/o Omerga, Taluka Omerga,
     District Osmanabad                         ...    APPLICANT

          VERSUS




                                 
     1.   The State of Maharashtra,
          (Copy to be served on P.P.,
                    
          High Court of Judicature of
          Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
                   
     2.   Police Station, Omerga,
          District Osmanabad,
          through its Police Inspector

     3.   Rajendra s/o Tulshiram Thakur,
      

          Age 35 years, Occ, Member,
          Panchayat Samiti, Omerga,
   



          District Osmanabad
          R/o Gunjoti, Tq. Omerga,
          District Osmanabad                    ...    RESPONDENTS

                                     .....





     Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for applicant
     Mrs. B.B. Gunjal, A.P.P. for State
                                     .....

                            CORAM:       K.U. CHANDIWAL &





                                         A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

                            DATED:       17th October, 2013.

                      Date of reserving judgment : 08/10/2013
                      Date of pronouncing judgment 17/10/2013


     JUDGMENT (Per A.I.S. Cheema, J.) :

1. Heard. Rule was issued in this matter on 20.4.2007.

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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.

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

(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.

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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,

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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 :

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

"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."

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

(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 :

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

"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

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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,

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

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

Cri.Appln.No.3387/2005

State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC

604, as well as M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & ors. Vs.

Md. Sharaful Haque & ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 9, 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.

             (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)              (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.)
      
   



     fmp/-