SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(SC) 409

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
State of Maharashtra, Appellant
Versus
Sk. Bannu and Shankar, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 282 and 283 of 1974, D/-12-9-1980. Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898), S.476 - "In or in relation to a proceeding in that Court" - Meaning of - Bail proceedings are part of subsequent proceeding commencing on presentation of challan.

Advocates:
J.C.BATRA, J.L.Nain, M.N.SHROFF

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 134 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 205, 419, 465, 467 and 471 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 476 read with 195 – Offence of Cheating by personation – Forgery – Charged - Application was made before that Court for releasing - Along with that application, an affidavit was filed which purported to have been sworn by one as a surety - Affidavit was sworn before Senior Clerk (P W. 2) and accused 2, is alleged to have identified him and attested that application for this purpose - Senior Clerk accordingly accepted what they stated and he made necessary endorsement on affidavi - On basis of that affidavit, was released on bail - Bail application and affidavit were scribed by accused 3 - Notice was also issued to surety, (P. W. 3) appeared before Magistrate in response to notice and filed a reply in writing (Ex. 25/A) contending that he had never stood as surety for accused; and that, he did not make any affidavit, nor did he sign the application or affidavit or bail bond – Held, it could not be argued that this forged document was produced in a proceeding before Court of Chief Presidency Magistrate - Moreover, Magistrate sending such a complaint for investigation under Section 156 (3) cannot be said to have taken cognizance of offence, and no proceeding could be said to have been commenced before him, of which inquiry by police could be said to be part and parcel - Further, it cannot be said that police officer acting under Section 156 (3) was a delegate of Chief Presidency Magistrate or that investigation by him was an investigation by or on behalf of Magistrate - On these premises, Court held that production of forged receipt in course of such an investigation, was not production in a proceeding before Chief Presidency Magistrate, so as to attract ban - It cannot be disputed that bail proceedings before were judicial proceedings before a Court, although such proceedings took place at a stage when offence against accused, who was bailed out, was under police investigation - Facts in Nirmaljit Singhs case were materially different - Ratio of that decision, has no application to case before Court - Appeals allowed.

Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- These two appeals by the State of Maharashtra are directed against a common judgment, dated April 19, 1973, of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. Both will be disposed of by this judgment. They arise out of these facts:

2. Three persons, namely, Shankar, Sk. Bannu and Mohammad Nazir were tried for offences punishable under Sections 205, 419, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a complaint made on August 12, 1968 by Shri R. K. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, under Sec. 476 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sk. Bannu, accused 2 was, at the relevant time, serving as a Clerk to an Advocate at Akola. Mohammed Nazir, accused 3, is the son of Sk. Bannu. Accused 1, Shankar, was a milkman residing at Dabki Road, Akola.

3. On October 25, 1968, in respect of offences under Section 85 (1) (2) and (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. one Deolal Kishan was arrested. He was produced before Shri L. G. Deshpande, Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Akola, and was remanded to custody till November 2, 1968.

4. On November 1, 1968, an application was made before that Court for releasing Deolal Kishan. Along with that application, an affidavit was filed which purported to have been sworn by one Gulabrao Rupchand Tikar as a surety. This affidavit was sworn before the Senior Clerk (P W. 2) and accused 2, Sk. Bannu is alleged to have identified him as Gulabrao and attested that application for this purpose. The Senior Clerk accordingly accepted what they stated and he made the necessary endorsement on the affidavit. Thus, on the basis of that affidavit, Deolal Kishan was released on bail on November 1, 1968. The bail application and the affidavit were scribed by accused 3.

5. The case against Deolal Kishan was transferred on April 20, 1969 to the Court of Mr. Karandikar, Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Akola, before whom it came up for hearing on May 12, 1969. On that date, Deolal Kishan did not appear. Consequently, the Court issued a non-bailable warrant against him for his arrest and production. Notice was also issued to the surety, Gulabrao Rupchand Tikar (P. W. 3). Gulabrao appeared before the Magistrate on June 2, 1969 in response to the notice and filed a reply in writing (Ex. 25/A) contending that he had never stood as surety for the accused Deolal Kishan; and that, he did not make any affidavit, nor did he sign the application or the affidavit or the bail bond. According to him, he was literate and could sign his name, while the application and the affidavit, in question, bore thumb-impressions of the surety. Gulabrao denied that he swore any affidavit for standing surety of Deolal Kishan. Thereupon, the Magistrate recorded the statement of Gulabrao and initiated an inquiry. He called Mohd. Nazir, accused 3, the scriber of the bail application, and recorded his statement. He also called accused 2, Sk. Bannu, and, directed him to produce the real surety on June 10, 1969 as the Magistrate was satisfied on the inquiry made by him that the person named in the bail application as the surety was not the real surety.

6. On November 9, accused 3, Mohd. Nazir, made an application to the Magistrate on behalf of his father, accused 2, that the real name of the surety was Shankar Kishan Kawitkar. Thereupon, the Magistrate, on June 10, 1969, issued summons to accused 1, Shankar Kishan Kawitkar. The latter appeared in response to the summons on June 17, 1969. The Magistrate recorded his statement (Ex. 29), in which he admitted that the bail application and the affidavit had been thumb-marked by him at the instance of accused 2, and that he had no knowledge about the contents of the application and the affidavit.

7. On the preceding facts, the Magistrate made a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Akola, for prosecution of the three accused persons in respect of the aforesaid offences. The complaint came up before Shri P. N. Panchawadkar, Judicia

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top