Misc. Application No. 229 of 2006 · Uttarakhand High Court · 2010

Sri Vijendra Chaudhary, advocate, who appeared on behalf of Ajit Singh in an appeal against the order dated 02.05.2005 passed by Nail Tehsildar, who rejected the application for sanction of mutation on the basis of WILL of Amrik Singh made in favour of Ajit Singh. On the basis of complaint, challan was submitted before Magistrate, thus, applicant Vijendra Chaudhary has been chargesheeted under sections 420, 466, 467, 468 471 IPC and summon has been issued against the applicant vide order dated 23.01.2006. Since aggrieved, applicant has filed present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner simply appeared as Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajit Singh and whatever documents were handed 4 over by the appellant Ajit Singh to him were produced before the Court. Therefore, he cannot be held liable for the offence committed by the appellant Ajit Singh, is beneficiary of the alleged forged death certificate. He further argued that offence under section 420 IPC is not made out against the petitioner as petitioner has neither had dishonest intention nor he has availed any wrongful gain by producing such documents before the court. Learned counsel the applicant further submitted that advocate acts on the instructions given by his client and he also places documents on record, which are handed over to him by client. On the other hand learned AGA opposed the petition and submitted that the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offence for which petitioner has been charged. Learned AGA referred to the statements of Mohd. Aafaq, Mohan Singh Diwakar, Jagdish Arora clerk of applicant and Ajit Singh recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that from the perusal of the statements of above witnesses it is clear that applicant was responsible for commission of the crime. He referred to the statement of Ajit Singh, who stated that his advocate Vijendra Chaudhary (applicant) had asked for Rs. 25000/- for getting his name mutated in the revenue record. He has further stated that he never appeared before the court nor he obtained the death certificate of Amrik Singh from any authority. It was procured by advocate Vijendra Chaudhary, himself. Even Jagdish Arora has stated 5 that Vijendra Chaudhary had produced the death certificate. He has no knowledge how did he procure the same. On careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Vijendra Chaudhary appeared as advocate on behalf of Ajit Singh. Initially, Ajit Singh had produced death certificate before the Naib Tehsildar, which was found to be not issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, he filed appeal before the Assistant Collector and in the appeal the death certificate was produced which is shown to be issued by Block Development Officer, however, on enquiry it was found to be forged. Except the statement of Ajit Singh there is no other evidence on record that alleged death certificate had been forged by the applicant. Petitioner being advocate, he advises his client and if any forged document is handed over to him by his client, the advocate cannot be held responsible. Simply because the alleged death certificate had been produced by advocate before the court, it does not prove that the advocate, who produced it, had committed the offence. Moreover, the advocate would not have been the beneficiary if the said certificate was accepted or rejected. It would ultimately be the person who would have received some wrongful gain by producing it. From the record it is not proved that applicant had any wrongful intention to produce the forged document before the court. It appears that Ajit Singh 6 made statement before the Investigating Officer in order to save his own skin. The argument that all the witnesses have stated that forged death certificate was produced by applicant and therefore, he should be held liable, cannot be accepted. The advocate is normally appointed as attorney by the client to discharge the duties as his legal adviser. In these circumstances, I am of the view that order of taking cognizance against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.01.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur taking cognizance of offence under sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner is hereby quashed. (Nirmal Yadav, J) 03.08.2010 SKS