IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1176 of 2009 ------------------------ OPMV.576/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): ---------------------- BABU P BENEDICT, ADVOCATE, 11/30, KUMMATTY BUILDINGS, NEAR HOTEL NALANDA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASOORYA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2009, ALONG WITH CRA NO. 1177 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: “CR” V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.Appeal.Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21 st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The operative directions in the common award of the MACT, Kozhikode impugned in these appeals present a rather disquieting and disturbing feature. Those directions demonstrate the lack of sensitivity on the part of the Tribunal in casting unjustified stigmas against a member of the legal profession. 2. The common appellant in these appeals is an Advocate by profession ordinarily practising in the Courts at Kozhikode. In these appeals filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C, the appellant challenges the prosecution ordered against him by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT for short), Kozhikode in O.P (M.V) Nos.442 and 576 of 2004. As per the impugned common award, the Tribunal has ordered prosecution against the claimants and their counsel (the appellant herein) by directing the Sheristhadar of the Tribunal to file separate complaints against the claimants therein as well as their counsel (the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 2 appellant herein) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. In compliance of the said order two separate complaints have been lodged against the appellant before the C.J.M seeking to prosecute him for offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 463, 464 and 468 IPC. The C.J.M in turn, has made over the complaints to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - I ( JFCM for short ), Kozhikode and the complaint in O.P(M.V) No.442 of 2004 has been registered as C.C.No.396 of 2009 and the complaint arising from O.P.(M.V) No.576 of 2004 has been registered as C.C.No.684 of 2009. 3. O.P.(M.V)No.442 of 2004 before the Tribunal below was filed by the widow, son and daughter (shown as respondent No.3 in the O.P.) of one Moideen Koya who was allegedly killed on 12.1.2004 in a motor accident involving a collision between a tempo van and a tempo trax. The deceased and one Aminabi were travelling in the tempo van shown as bearing Reg.No.TN 2303 which was proceeding from Kozhikode to Madras. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the tempo trax which came from the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 3 opposite direction and bearing Reg.No.TN 38/Z-3737 of which the New India Assurance Company was the insurer and one K.R.Velumani was the owner. The accident took place within the limits of Maghudanchavadi Police Station where the crime was registered as FIR No.25/2004 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. O.P.(M.V)No.576 of 2004 was filed by Aminabi, who was a co-passenger along with Moideenkoya in the tempo van referred to above, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her. As mentioned earlier, both the O.P(M.V)s were filed on the footing that it was the driver of the other vehicle (tempo trax) of which Velumani was the owner and the New India Assurance Company was the insurer who was negligent resulting in the collision culminating in the death of Moideen Koya and the sustaining of injuries by Aminabi. 4. The New India Assurance Company filed a counter, inter alia, contending that the number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident on 12.1.2001 was not TN 2303 but was TN23/X-8145 and the other vehicle namely the tempo trax Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 4 bearing Registration No.TN 38/Z 3737 was insured with the New India Assurance Company. Thereupon the appellant who was appearing for the claimants in the above two O.P(M.V)s filed separate applications with his own affidavit for correcting the number TN 2303 as TN 23/X-8145. I.A.No.1562 of 2005 was an application filed in O.P.(M.V.)No.442 of 2004 to correct the number of the vehicle as TN 23/X 8145 instead of TN 2303. Likewise, I.A.No.1808 of 2005 was an application filed in O.P. (M.V) No.576 of 2004 to make the very same correction regarding the said vehicle. The appellant filed an affidavit in support of both the applications stating, inter alia, that it was a clerical mistake and not a wilful act on his part. Both these applications were allowed. Thereafter, on 31.12.2005 an interim award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for Rs.45,000/- in favour of the widow of deceased Moideen Koya and another sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the mother of the deceased was passed and the New India Assurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount by way of two cheques. There is no dispute that the New India Assurance Company Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 5 produced cheques for the said amounts which were disbursed to the claimants without any demur. It was thereafter that the Tribunal below without recording any oral evidence from any of the claimants or the respondents including the Insurance Company passed the impugned common award as per which besides dismissing the two O.P.(M.V)s with compensatory costs of Rs.10,000/- payable both by the claimants as well as their counsel (the appellant), the appellant has been, inter alia, found guilty of committing forgery and manipulation. The Tribunal as per the impugned award ordered prosecution of the claimants as well as the appellant. Some of the observations and findings in the common order are as follows:- A) A photocopy of the FIR Ext.A1 in OP(MV) 442/2004 is seen produced and marked as Ext.A1 in OP(MV) 576/2004. The Advocate appearing for the petitioners has attested this document Ext.A1 in OP(MV)576/2004 as true copy of Ext.A1 marked in OP(MV)442/2004. Photocopy of a photocopy of Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 6 a document is totally inadmissible in law as it is not secondary evidence. Apparently the counsel for the petitioner is unaware or ignorant of the significance of rejection of such copies of a public document by a court of law. B) One of the photocopies of an FIR prepared in connection with the accident is seen attested by somebody in O.P.(M.V) No.442 of 2004. Therefore this FIR is treated as unauthenticated FIR. Therefore, FIR which is marked as Ext.A1 IN O.P. (M.V)No.576 of 2004 will also lack its legal validity. C) The address of R2 reveals that it is the divisional office of New India Assurance at Kozhikode. The vehicles bear registration number of Tamil Nadu. The practice adopted by the counsel for the petitioners in innumerable cases is that when an accident occurred even outside the State, the branch office of the local area is shown as the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 7 respondent-insurer. This practice has created much difficulty for the court and specific directions have been issued to the bar to produce batta in the name of the actual insurer, whose name is shown in the cause title, so that the summons could be issued to the insurer who issued the Policy in respect of the relevant vehicle. D) By filing an affidavit in support of I.A.No.1808 of 2004, the counsel for the petitioners himself has admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident was not TN-2303 but it is TN/23-X-8145. Thus the defence raised by respondent No.2 is correct that the petitioners have changed the vehicle in which the deceased and injured were travelling. E) It was the duty of the counsel to implead the name of the owner, driver and insurance company of the said vehicle. No such request is seen made in the said I.A. Therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.1808 of 2005 by my learned predecessor-in- Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 8 office has no legal consequence. When a vehicle is changed, definitely the name of the owner, driver and the insurance company of the said vehicle would be changed. Therefore, it is quite evident that the petitioners' counsel does not want to bring the proper persons in the party array and hence he abstained from impleading the driver, owner and insurance company of the vehicle No.TN-23/X- 8145, which is actually involved in the accident as per their admission in the affidavit sworn by the Advocate in I.A.No.1808 of 2005. F) The consequence of non-impleadment of the driver,owner and insurance Company of the correct vehicle (TN 23/X-8145) is an indication that the petitioners might have already obtained award against the concerned parties of the said vehicle from Tamil Nadu as the vehicles have been registered and insured there. Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 9 G) Therefore I find that the petitioners' counsel has played fraud on court and obtained award u/s140 for Rs.50,000/- with interest in OP(MV) No442/2004 by changing the number of the vehicle which was actually involved and created the accident . H) In OP(MV)No.442/2004, I.A.No.1562 of 2004 which is similar to that of I.A.No.1808/2005 in OP (MV)No.576 of 2004 is seen filed for amending the number TN-2303 as TN-23/X-8145. This affidavit is also sworn by the petitioners' counsel and not the petitioners. This petition stands allowed. The admission of the petitioners' counsel that wrong vehicle is shown in the claims has much significance. I) It is crystal clear that Ext.A1 is only a photocopy of a tampered FIR prepared by overwriting the actual number 8145 and substituting TN-2303. Thus I find merit in the defence that the learned Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 10 counsel for the petitioners has played fraud on court and obtained award u/s.140. I.A.No.1808 of 2005 was allowed on 29.11.2002. Thereafter without complying the direction of the court, petitioner has obtained award under Section 140 on 31.12.2005, without impleading the driver, owner and insurer of TN-23/X-8145. If the insurance company of this vehicle is made a party, the truth will come out of the bag. Before impleading the proper parties, cunningly the counsel has obtained award u/s 140 against the insurer of the other vehicle which is involved in the accident. J) Therefore, I find that the present counsel alone is responsible for defrauding the court by committing forgery in a copy of FIR. K) The reason for playing this fraud by the counsel on court is implicit. He had full knowledge that the accident was occurred due to Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 11 the negligence of TN-23/X-2145 and that there is possibility of granting award by any of the court at Tamil Nadu against the concerned persons. Hence he has deliberately committed forgery in the copy of FIR by obtaining double award from the court against the other vehicle. L) The modus operandi adopted by the Advocate for making the court as an instrument for misappropriation of Public Fund is now evident. In hundreds of claim petitions filed by the present counsel have been dismissed as fraud, forgery, manipulation and impersonation have been detected. Therefore, I am of the view that the present counsel has exploited the privilege of a counsel exceeding all the bounds. M) Once credibility of an Advocate is destructed the court cannot repose faith and pass orders without cross checking of submissions and documents. It is also noticed that he has prepared a wrong Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 12 translated copy of the FIR and persuaded the court to grant award u/s.140. N) The manipulated translated copy of FIR is also seen attested by him as true copy. For such forgery and manipulation the counsel alone is responsible. I am unable to find fault with the illiterate petitioners O) As per this post mortem certificate, the name of the deceased is one Mugaideen Koya. According to the petitioners in OP(MV)No.442/2004 their predecessor is K.T.Moideen Koya aged 48 years. Therefore, it is unknown whether the said Moideen Koya and the deceased Mugaideen Koya are one and same person. There is no evidence before the court for identifying the deceased. P) In claims filed by other members of the bar, they used to file certificate obtained from the concerned village officers by affirming that they wanted to produce the certificate before the court of law. But Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 13 the present counsel habitually producing certificates obtained from the concerned village officers without disclosing the intention. Q) The counsel for the petitioners has totally ignored the object of registering an FIR. In thousands of cases filed by him , I have repeatedly reminded him that the object of lodging on FIR is only to set the law in motion and it cannot be treated as a substantial piece of evidence. R) Thus I am fully satisfied that the petitioners' counsel has deliberately and intentionally played fraud on court for obtaining Section 140 award by committing forgery and manipulation in an FIR which is registered in a very grave offence. S)In O.P(M.V)No.576 of 2004 the counsel has produced a copy of the forged FIR by attesting the same as true copy. Thus I find that his credibility is collapsed and no court can repose faith on his submission or photocopies of documents relied on by him. Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 14 T). He habitually used to concoct documents for illegal gains by playing fraud on Court. The petitioner's counsel had exceeded the limits by raising a contention that the deceased and petitioner in O.P. (MV) 576/2004 were travelling in T.N. 2303 whereas by filing two affidavits he has admits that they were travelling in T.N.23/X-8145 which is not impleaded in both claims on the basis of forgery committed in the F.I.R. by using photocopier. U) I have no semblance of doubt in holding that the petitioners' counsel has deliberately created Ext.A1 document in O.P. (MV) 442/2004 with the full knowledge that there is possibility of getting award by the petitioners against the owner, driver and Insurance Company of TN 8145. V) A photocopy of the said forged FIR is attested himself in O.P. (MV) 576/2004. The object was to obtain award under Section 140 (i.e. a double Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 15 gain) which he has succeeded by playing fraud on court. W) The counsel appearing for them has played fraud on Court by abusing the process of law. X). Therefore, for filing such illegal claims by committing forgery in FIR, I am inclined to register complaints against the petitioners and their counsel under Sec. 340. The petitioners and the counsel are directed to deposit the compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/- each before this Court within thirty days on failure of which, a certificate will be issued to the District Collector as provided under Sec. 174. If amount is deposited or collected, the amount will be credited in the treasury in favour of the State.“ 5. It was on the aforementioned observations and findings that the Tribual below directed its Sheristadar to lodge complaints before the CJM against the appellant in each of the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 16 two cases and also against the claimants. Accordingly, as mentioned earlier, two separate complaints have been filed alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 196 to 200 and 463,464 and 468 IPC. Those complaints were purported to be filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 195 I.P.C. 6. In the case of offences pertaining to contempt of lawful authority of public servants such as those punishable under Sections 172 to 182 IPC including abetment of or attempts or criminal conspiracy to commit those offences and falling under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. the public servant concerned alone can file a complaint and such complaint can be filed without conducting an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. But if the offences committed are against public justice such as those punishable under Sections 193 to 196, I99, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 471, 475 or 476 IPC or any offence described in Section 463 IPC or the abetment of or criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit those offences in any proceeding before a court, such court or its superior court alone can file a complaint and that Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 17 too after conducting an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Eventhough Section 340 Cr.P.C only uses the word “may”, having regard to the fact that the principle of “audi alteram partem” is ingrained in the above provision enabling the court to prosecute the offender, the word “may” has to be understood as “shall”. The offences punishable under Sections 464 and 468 IPC referred to in the complaints are both offences described in Section 463 IPC within the meaning of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. Section 463 IPC only defines the offence of forgery. In the case of the offences punishable under Sections 464 and 468 IPC, eventhough they are referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C., the said provision is not attracted because the forgery in this case was not allegedly committed while the F.I.R. was in the custody of the court. Hence in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and Another - 2005 (4) SCC 370 if the forgery is committed prior to the production of the document before court, no enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C may be necessary and, therefore, with regard to the said Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 18 offence either the court can inform the police about the commission of those offences or can straightaway prefer a complaint before the competent Magistrate without an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. or can leave it to the aggrieved person to set the law in motion by either lodging a complaint before the police or before the Magistrate. But in the case of two of the offences referred to in the complaints, namely, offences punishable under Sections 199 and 200 I.P.C., both those offences fall under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) for which an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is a must. (vide 2006(3) KLT 418 - Kuttaiah v. Federal Bank Ltd ) . Such enquiry should be conducted by the prosecuting court itself and that court cannot abdicate its function in that behalf by delegating the power to conduct the enquiry to a subordinate court which is competent to take cognizance of the offence and / or try the same. (See Vittappan V. State - 1987(2) KLT 174). 7. As the enquiry in a case falling under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is one in respect of offences affecting the administration of justice, it is imperative for the court to record Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 19 a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so and this has to be after conducting a preliminary enquiry. (See Krishna Bhat v. Keshava Bhat - 1991(1) KLT 72; Thomman v. II Additional Sessions Judge- 1993(2) KLT 774 and Moideen Sha v. Joseph Mathew - 2007(4) KLT 315). In every case where a criminal court proposes to conduct an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. it has to issue a notice in Form No. 33 of Appendix I to the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, informing the person sought to be proceeded against that an enquiry will be held under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to determine whether a complaint should be laid against him for the offences concerned and calling upon him to show cause why such a complaint should not be made. 8. Even though the Tribunal purported to initiate action under Section 340 Cr.P.C., no enquiry has been conducted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. No notice in Form No. 33 was given to the appellant. There is also no finding in the impugned order that an enquiry into the aforementioned offences is expedient in the interests of justice. While it may be permissible to the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 20 court disposing of a case to initiate a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C for the prosecution of a person who appears to have committed an offence against public justice, it is not open to the court to take a final decision to make a complaint against such person in the very same order disposing of the main proceedings. Hence, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a decision to make a complaint against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode to prosecute him for the aforementioned offences, while disposing of the two O.P.(M.V)s without conducting any preliminary enquiry. 9. Even otherwise, the person sought to be proceeded against was an Advocate who is an officer of the Court. Before initiating prosecution against him, fair play, if not the principles of natural justice, demanded that he was given an opportunity of being heard before he was condemned. 10. Many of the expressions used by the Tribunal are vague, disparaging, out of context, uncalled for and inappropriate. The Tribunal ought to have noted that before accusing a member of the legal profession as ignorant, the Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 21 Tribunal itself should have been doubly sure that its orders are not founded on ignorance. It is not disclosed as to which are the “innumerable cases” in which a bad practice was allegedly adopted by the appellant. The Tribunal had a duty to reveal the numbers of those innumerable cases. Without ascertaining whether the claimants before the Tribunal had obtained from Tamil Nadu any award against the owner, driver or insurer of the vehicle T.N. 23/X-8145, it was totally out of place for the Tribunal to observe that the petitioners might have obtained award against the owner, driver and insurer of the said vehicle. It is pertinent to note that the New India Assurance Company which was impleaded as the 2nd respondent in both the OPs had no case that there was no accident as alleged or that Moideen Koya the husband of the first petitioner in O.P(M.V) No. 442/2004 was not killed in the accident. The Registration number as shown in the two OPs was the number of the vehicle in which the deceased Moideen Koya and Aminabi (Claimant in O.P(M.V) No. 576 of 2004) were travelling. The number of the said vehicle as shown in Crl. Appeal Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009 22 the O.P.(M.V)s, however, turned out to be wrong and the appellant filed the affidavits only to correct the mistake in the number. The specific case of the claimants in both the OPs was that it was on account of the negligence of the driver of the other vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 38/Z/3737 insured with the New India Assurance Company that the accident took place. Hence, if the claimants were adhering to the said case, it was not necessary for them to implead the driver, owner or the Insurer of the vehicle in which the injured persons were travelling. When the claimants were prepared to run the risk of maintaining their claim as against the owner and insurer of the other vehicle, it was not proper for the Tribunal to find fault with the claimants or the appellant for not impleading the owner, driver or insurer of the vehicle in which the victims were travelling. No finding was recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in which the injured were travelling. Hence, by correcting the registration number of the