V.N.Varma - (1.) THESE are six petitions under Section 482 CrPC (details given below), which I propose to dispose off together as they raise similar questions of law and fact. 1.Petition no. 1655 of 1979. Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 167 of 1975. 2.Petition no. 1656 of 1979.-Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 168 of 1975. 3.Petition no. 1657 of 1979.-Filed by Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bis- han Swarup for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 169 of 1975. 4.Petition no. 1690 of 1979.-Piled by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 167 1975. 5.Petition no. 1691 of 1979.-Piled by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 168 of 1975. 6.Petition no. 1692 of1979.--Filed by Shanker Lal Bhargava for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 169 of 1975.
(2.) FROM the above it will thus appear that the arrangement of various persons as accused in the aforesaid three cases are as follows :- 1.Cr. Case no. 167 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Snvastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava. 2.Cr.Case no. 168 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava. 3.Cr. Case no. 169 of 1975. (1) Suresh Chandra Srivastava, (2) Shanker Lal Bhargava, (3) Bishan Swarup. At the relevant time (year 1967) Shanker Lal Bhargava was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the office of High Court at Allahabad, while Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup were clerks of Advocates. The S.O. Judicial Department, High Court made a report to the Registrar that court fee stamps of the value of Rs. 3,007.50 p. (on 15th sheets) were missing from the Judicial file of F. A. no 186 of 1960. On the basis of that report an inquiry was instituted and it was discovered that three court fee stamps of the value of Rs. 1000/- each had been reused in F. A. no. 281 of 1967, F. A. no. 2832 of 1967 and F. A. no. 357 of 1967. The inquiry further revealed that in several other cases also used court fee stamps had [been reused. The Registrar suspected (that a well organized gang of racketeers was operating in the High Court to defraud the government by surreptitiously removing from the judicial files of decided cases used court fee stamps and by reusing them in fresh cases and, be, therefore, with the permission of Honourable the Chief Justice reported the [matter to the then Inspector General of [Police, Uttar Pradesh. The I. G. Police ordered C.I.D. U. P. to investigate into the matter. After investigating into the matter the C.I.D. submitted three charge-sheets for offences under Secs. 262,263, 467, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC and on the basis of those charge sheets three cases, namely, Cr. Case no. 167 of 1975, Cr. Case no. 168 of 1975 and Cr. Case no. 169 of 1975 were instituted. The case against Shanker Lal Bhargava in all the three cases was that us Stamp Reporter his duty was to check the court fee stamps filed in various appeals, but he did not do his duty honestly and in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched between several persons, he allowed, reusing of the used court fee stamps with a view to make illegal gain. Regarding Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup it was said that they were also parties to the aforesaid conspiracy and had actually reused the used court fee stamps in filing F. A. no. 281 of 1967, 282 of 1967 and 357 of 1967.
(3.) ALL the three persons-Shanker Lal Bhargava, Suresh Chandra Srivastava and Bishan Swarup-were summoned by C. J. M. ALLahabad to stand their trial in the cases referred to above. They put in appearance in court and raised a preliminary objection to the framing of charges against them. They contended that no charge could be framed against them in any of the three cases because the very institution of these cases against them was illegal and not in accordance with law. They pleaded the bar of Section 195 CrPC against their prosecution. The learned Magistrate repelled their objection in all the cases and ordered that charges shall be framed against them according to the allegations and evidence on record. They felt dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Magistrate and challenged the correctness of the same in this court by filing petitions nos. 1655 of 1979, 1656 of 1979, 1657 of 1979, 1690 of 1979, 1691 of 1979 and 1692 of 1979 as mentioned above. At the very outset the learned counsel for the State contended that these petitions were incompetent as the applicants did not assail the impugned orders by way of revision. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the applicants could have approached this court by way of Section 482 CrPC only after they had filed revisions against the impugned orders and their revisions had failed. It is true that generally speaking the power under Section 482 is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party, but at the same time it is equally true that nothing in the Code which would include sub section (1) of Sec. 397 also (regarding the right to file a revision) "shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court." It would thus follow that merely because the applicants did not seek redress of their grievance by filing revisions against the impugned orders, their right to approach this court under Section 482 CrPC would not stand barred. In the interest of justice, the court can always exercise its inherent powers, to give relief to an aggrieved party. In my opinion, the present applications are legally maintainable and the objections raised by the learned State counsel regarding their non-maintainability are bereft of substance.;