K. Nath, J. - (1.) THE appellant Ram Asrey Tripathi is a practising lawyer in Rae Bareli. One Ausan was standing trial for an offence under section 396 IPC in State v. Ausan, Sessions Trial No. 158 of 1980, in the Court of Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. In order to obtain his bail, surety bounds of Ausan's father, Bhola, and another person, purporting to be his maternal uncle, Mathura, were filed. THE appellant Ram Asrey Tripathi appended the following endorsement of identification of Mathura on the surety bond on 4-10-1979; "Identified both the sureties (namely Bhola and Mathura) who have put their L. T. I. before me and are personally known to me and are fit sureties for the like amount (Rs. 5,000/-)". Subsequently, Ausan failed to appear for the purposes of trial. On enquiry been made, Mathura appeared before the court and denied having stood surety for Ausan. On being called upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to show cause in respect of false identification of Mathura who had denied having stood surety, the appellant filed a reply. Paper No. 18-B, explaining that the security bond had been accepted by the CJM not on account of identification by him, but on the report of the Tehsil, in consequence of which his responsibility ceased. He added that later on Ausan appeared in the court on 17-9-1980 and the case proceeded. He added that the Pairvi of Ausan was being done by his father Bhola in whose company Bhola's brother-in-law, i. e. Mathura, used to come, and that on the basis of the information given by Bhola and documents, he had identified Mathura in good faith as part of his professional duties and that, due to fear from it and threats of the police and in order to save himself from running about to the courts, Mathura had made a false and fictitious written submission that he had not stood surety. He, therefore, prayed for the notice to be discharged,
(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge obtained sample thumb impressions of Mathura and forwarded the same to the Finger Print Expert of UP CID. THE report of the Expert was that the disputed thumb impression on the surety bond did not tally with that of Mathura. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge then recorded the deposition of Mathura PW 1, Bhola PW 2 and Finger Print Expert Moti Lal CW 1; all the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant. No witness was examined by the appellant himself. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the purported thumb impression of Mathura on the disputed surety bond was not genuine and had not been affixed by the purported person, namely, PW 1 Mathura-material uncle of accused Ausan-and that appellant Ram Asrey Tripathi had personally identified a fake person as Mathura and had given a false certificate to that effect, on account of which the CJM accepted the bonds, on the basis of which accused Ausan was released. He was of the opinion that the appellant's act of giving a false certificate constituted a declaration within the meaning of Section 199 IPC and had further constituted an abetment of a fake person to impersonate as Mathura within the meaning of section 109 read with Section 205 IPC. He observed that the appellant had been indulging in making false identifications of persons in a number of cases in the past, and that it was expedient and necessary in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint against him under section 340 CrPC. He accordingly directed a complaint to be lodged under section 340 CrPC against the appellant for offences under sections 199 and 205 IPC read with section 109 IPC and such other provisions of the law as may be applicable. This is an appeal under section 341 CrPC against the said order.
(3.) THE facts, stated above, have not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal. THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the acceptance of the bond of Mathura was caused not by the identification made by the appellant, but on account of the Tehsil's report. It may be mentioned that after the surety bonds had been filed on 4-10-1979, the CJM directed their verification from Tehsil. On 12-10-1979 a report was made by the Tehsil stating that Mathura was solvent for Rs. 5,000/-. It is clear enough that this report only confirmed the solvency of Mathura and not his identity. On 29-10-1979 the CJM passed the following order on the surety bonds :- "Provisionally accepted on the basis of affidavit. Documents be sent back by proper channel for verification," It is clear enough that this order of provisional acceptance of the sureity bond rested upon the affidavits which had been filed by Bhola and Mathura on which identification of Mathura had been made by the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be said that the surety bond of Mathura had not been accepted on the basis of his identification by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant then says that ultimately Ausan, the accused, had surrendered before the court on 17-9-1980 and in due course, after trial, had been acquitted on 12-5-1981. This may be only an extenuating circumstance; it is not an exonerating circumstance. The commission of the offence, if any, would have been complete at the time of false identification of Mathura by the appellant; his subsequent appearance and acquittal could not affect the commission of the offence.;