JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

2. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 18.05.2018 by means of which, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 120(B)/419 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in connection with G.R. Case No. 609/2016.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was the counsel engaged by the accused in another Complaint Case No. 2495/2012, viz., Rajesh Saikia. On 31.05.2015, Sri. Ranjit Saikia i.e. the brother of accused Rajesh Saikia, had appeared before the court of JMFC, Kamrup(M) in connection with CR Case 2495/2012 by impersonating the accused. On being objected to by the complainant, the co-accused Ranjit Saikia had admitted that he was not Rajesh Saikia but has appeared on his behalf on being instructed to do so by the petitioner, who was the counsel for accused Rajesh Saikia in that case. Since the co-accused in this case had admitted to have impersonated the accused in that case, the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) had lodged an ejahar on 31.05.2015 before the Panbazar Police Station reporting the incident. Based on the said ejahar, Panbazar P.S. Case No. 210/2016 was registered under sections 120(B)/419 of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and Ranjit Saikia. The learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) had accordingly taken cognizance in the matter and upon hearing the parties, had framed charge against both the accused persons under Sections 120(B)/419 of the IPC by the impugned order dated 18.05.2018.

4. Mr. Bora submits that in this case the learned Magistrate has framed charge against the petitioner relying solely upon the confession made by the co-accused Ranjit Saikia. Contending that confessional statement of a co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, cannot be the basis of conviction in a criminal case the learned senior counsel submits that save and except the confession of the co-accused, there was no other material available before the learned trial court to Assam, appearing for the respondents. frame charge against the petitioner. Mr. Bora submits that it is not a case of cheating but cheating by impersonation and therefore, Section 419 IPC would have no application to the facts of the case. Mr. Bora further submits that even assuming that there was impersonation in this case, even then, section 205 of the IPC would to come into play. However, due to the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which prohibits cognizance being taken with regard to an offence under Section 205 of the IPC without a complaint having been lodged by the person concerned, the present proceeding has been deliberately misdirected only to frame charge against the petitioner under Sections 120(B) read with Section 419 of the IPC so as to cover up the lacunae in the process of investigation. Contending that it is a clear case of judicial camouflage, Mr. Bora has submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in exercise of jurisdiction by failing to consider the aforesaid aspects of the matter while issuing the impugned order dated 18.05.2018. In support of his aforesaid arguments, Mr. Bora has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 and in the case of Basir-ul-huq v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1953 SC 293 to contend that trial in a criminal case cannot be started only based on the confessional statement of a co-accused.

5. Relying upon another decision of this Court reported in 1971 SCC OnLine Gau 5 [Suresh Chandra Das v. State of Meghalaya]. Mr. Bora has argued that the confession of a co-accused c