Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahi Pal And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 26 March, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ43
Author: P.K. Jain
Bench: P.K. Jain
ORDER P.K. Jain, J.
1. Mahi Pal and Amar Pal Singh, petitioners, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing F.I.R. No. 15 dated 28-12-1992, registered under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C., by the State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, and the consequent charge-sheet fied under Section 173 of the Code and pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.
2. The back-drop of the case runs like this. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 15-1-1986 made by the Haryana Public Service Commission, Mahi Pal had applied for one of the three temporary posts of Traffice Manager Class-II in the Transport Department, Haryana. Academic qualification under the "essential qualifications" prescribed for the post was Graduate of a recognised University with three years' experience in Motor Road Transport and adequate knowledge of Hindi. Mahi Pal petitioner along with others was interviewed by the said Public Service Commission on 3-9-1986. Result was declared on 10-9-1986. The name of Mahi Pal petitioner was recommended by the said Commission to the State Government for appointment to the post of Traffic Manager, and he was also intimated accordingly by letter dated 12-9-1986.
3. However, the petitioner was not appointed as such and he filed Civil Writ Petition 692 of 1987 in this Court which was allowed by order dated September 6, 1988 with a direction to the State of Haryana to appoint the said petitioner as Traffic Manager-Class II. The appointment of Mahi Pal petitioner and two others was challenged by Six other persons in Civil Writ Petition No. 5560 of 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5342 of 1986. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated November 24, 1989 (Annexure R.I). However, while dismissing these civil writ petition, it was made clear that the observations made in the judgment would not prevent the State Government to rescind the appointment of the three persons including Mahi Pal petitioner, if after enquiry it is found that the certificates of experience submitted by them were not genuine.
4. After making detailed enquiry, the State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, registered the impugned first information report No. 178 (Annexure P.2) on 7-5-1993 against both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet (Annexure P.3) was filed against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani.
5. The petitioners have challenged the registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge-sheet in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, on the grounds that once petitioner No. I was appointed in purusance of the directions given by this Court, the question of the commission of any offence by him does not arise. It has been further stated that in the other two civil writ petitions, referred to above, the stand of the State Government was that the certificate of experience filed by petitioner No. 1 was genuine and the selection and appointment had been made in accordance with law. It has been further pleaded that the Court at Bhiwani has no jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet in question and to proceed against the petitioner because the alleged offence had been committed at Delhi and Chandigarh.
6. In reply it has been pleaded that the certificate of experience submitted by Mahi Pal petitioner was found to be false and fabricated after detailed enquiry, that the address of the alleged Firm M/s. ESS Brothers Tourist Service, Delhi, given in the said document was a residential house and the said Firm was not in existence at all, that petitioner No. 2 had made a statement that the alleged experience certificate had not been issued by him although thereafter he filed an affidavit to the contrary. It has been further stated that since petitioner No. 1 was posted at Bhiwani, State Vigilance Bureau, Hissar, had the jurisdiction to register the case and to file the charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, and as such the Court at Bhiwani has the jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet and to try the offences. It has been further stated that while disposing of the two civil writ petitions referred to by the petitioners, the State was permitted for enquiry into the genuineness of the experience certificates.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. S. Baldev Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that assuming the allegations of the prosecution to be correct, the offences can be said to have been committed at Delhi and Chandigarh and as such the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, has got no jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet in question and to try the petitioners. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon three judgments of this Court rendered in Rvinder Pal Singh Gautam v. Punjab Tractors Ltd. (1987) 1 Rec Cri. R. 680, Arivapadi Kannikeswarao Balakrishnan v. Bhartiya Cutler Hammer Ltd. (1988) 1 Rec. Cri. R. 299; and Jai Prakash v. Dinesh Dayal 1991 CRI, L.J. 418(Delhi).
9. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that once the appointment of the petitioner has been made under the orders of this Court, the question of the commission of any offence by the petitioner does not arise and that the State Government itself had taken a specific stand in the other two civil writ petitions that the experience certificate submitted by petitioner No. 1 was genuine.
10. On the other hand Shri P. S. Sullar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that since the petitioner was posted-at Bhiwani at the relevant time, the charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the alleged Firm of which the experience certificate is purported to have been produced by respondent No. 1 has its Head Office at Bhiwani, and therefore, the Court at Bhiwani has the jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet and to try the petitioners for the said offence. On merits, it has been argued by the learned ' A.A.G. that the State Government has not been debarred by this Court, from making an enquiry into the genuineness of the experience certificate submitted by petitioner No. 1, which was ultimately found to be false and fabricated and the first information report and the charge-sheet are not liable to be quashed.
11. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced at the Bar.
12. The ordinary rule as to jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code is that it is the area within which the offence is committed that determines the Court which has jurisdiction to try the offence and not the place where the offender may be found. Then Section 184 of the Code reads as under:-
184. Place of trial for offences triable together :- Where :-
(a) the offence committed by any person are such that he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each such offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 219, Section 220 or Section 221, or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several persons are such that they may be charged with and tried together by virtue of the provisions of Section 223, the offences may be inquired into or trial by any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences.
From a bare perusal of this Section, it is clear that if more than one offence has been committed by the same person or by more than one person in one series of acts and the acts are connected with each other in such a manner that they form part of the same transaction, then the accused person or persons may be tried for every such offence by any court competent to try any of the offence. "Same transaction" is where the acts alleged against the accused are connected by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action, than they constitute same transaction. The main test is continuity of action by which is meant the following up of some initial act through all its consequences and incidents until the series of acts or group of connected acts come to an end. Therefore, it becomes clear that offences which consist of series of acts connected together so as to form the same transaction and more offences then one are committed by that person along with other person, he or they may be tried at one trial at one of the places where one of such offences has been committed.
13. In the present case, according to the prosecution, "the experience certificate" was forged and fabricated by petitioner No. 1 in conspiracy with petitioner No. 2 at Delhi and the same was used by petitioner No. 1 at Chandigarh, where he was interviewed by the Haryana Public Service Commission in pursuance of an application submitted by him alongwith the said experience certificate. In other words, the offences of entering into the conspiracy and fabricating a false document were committed at Delhi, and the offence of cheating by producing a false certificate thereby obtaining a job was committed at Chandigarh. The learned State counsel has not been able to show as to what offence the petitioners had committed at Bhiwani, has got the jurisdiction to try these offences. The only averment in the reply filed by the State is that the Firm M/s. ESS Brothers Tourist Service, Delhi, has its head office at Bhiwani. The mere fact that this Firm has got its head office at Bhiwani would not give jurisdiction to a Court at Bhiwani to try these offences. This view finds affirmation in Jai Parkash's case 1991 Cri LJ 418 (Delhi) (supra). Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that the Court at Bhiwani has got no jurisdiction to entertain the charge-sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code against the petitioner and to try these offences.
14. In view of my above findings, it is not just and proper to go into the merits of the case and to see if the petitioners have committed any offence or if there is sufficient material to put the petitioners on trial.
15. As a result of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 23-2-1993 (Annexure P.3) filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.