JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, an advocate of Champua has challenged the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Keonjhar taking cognizance of offences under Sections 205 and 181 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (?I.P.C.? for short) on the basis of a complaint filed by the Judicial Magistrate, Barbil. 2. Facts giving rise to the case may be stated. In G R. Case No. 132 of 1984 Samai Munda and Sri Rama Naik were convicted u/s 379 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barbil by judgment dated 18-5-1987. -The convicts appealed before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar and prayed for being released on bail in Criminal Appeal No. ? 15 of 1987. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 3-6-1987 allowed bail and directed their release for Rs. 3000/- each with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The convicts offered bail, their bailor being one Mangal Munda who bad executed the bail bonds and had sworn an affidavit for proof of solvency. In support of the solvency affidavit, Patta and rent receipts were also produced. Bailor Mangal Munda had put his left thumb impressions on the bail bonds and the left thumb impressions were attested by the Advocate on 13-5-1987. On the same day, at the time of swearing the solvency affidavit the Petitioner had not only attested his left thumb impressions, but also had identified Mangal Munda before the Subordinate Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Champua. So, the Petitioner had attested the left thumb impressions of Mangal Munda and had identified him on documents in a judicia] proceeding, on the basis of which the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the bail bonds and directed release of the convicts from jail. On 14-7-1987 the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a memo and submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate that Mangal Munda who had acted as bailor of the convicts had died one and half years back. On such submission being made, the learned Judicial Magistrate called for a report from the police. A message was received from Jhumpura Out-post to the effect that Mangal Munda had died since 11-6-1986. On such submission being made, the learned Judicial Magistrate called for a report from the police. A message was received from Jhumpura Out-post to the effect that Mangal Munda had died since 11-6-1986. On the basis of the report, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 21-7-1987 directing the Petitioner as well as the convicts, to show cause on 3-8-1987 as to why the bail bonds executed on 13-6-1987 shall not be cancelled. On 25-7-1987 on receipt of a memo from the Petitioner for clarification; the learned Judicial Magistrate permitted him to inspect the records. Copies of such documents were also furnished to him. The Petitioner, however, did not subsequently appear in Court and, therefore, on 30-7-1987 the learned Judicial Magistrate directed submission of a complaint. Accordingly, a complaint petition was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the Petitioner on the allegation that he had committed offences under Sections 205 and 181 read with Section 109. I.P.C. It is needless to say that on the basis of the complaint petition, cognizance of the offence was taken which is now sought to be quashed. 3. According to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ?the Code?) which deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice ?and for offences relating 1:0 documents given in evidence, no Court shall take cognisance of any offences punishable under Sections 205 and 181, Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. According to Section 340 of the Cole which deals with the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195, before making a complaint in writing, the Court is to be satisfied on the following points: (i) An application has been made to it or it has information otherwise; (ii) It is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence or offences which appear to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court; and (iii) After such preliminary inquiry, if any, as the Court thinks necessary, it records a finding to that effect. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Rahenoma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, urged that, (i) the learned Judicial Magistrate did not make a preliminary inquiry; and (ii) did not record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made before filing the complaint petition. Because of this legal defect, the complaint petition is vulnerable in law and the order of cognizance based on it is liable to be quashed. 5. Section 340 of the Code is almost pari materia to Section 476 of the repealed Code. There are a large number of decisions of different High Courts taking the view that it is not obligatory on the part of a Judicial Magistrate to make, a preliminary inquiry, because Section 340 itself gives a wide discretion to the Judicial Magistrate for making ?such preliminary inquiry, if any as he thinks necessary?. But in suitable cases, it is desirable for the Judicial Magistrate to make a preliminary inquiry to ascertain facts relating to the alleged offence or offences. So making of a preliminary inquiry will depend on the facts of each case. For instance, if all the material facts are already before him, on the basis of which a prima facie view can reasonably be taken that certain offence or offences mentioned in Section 195 of the Code have been committed, a preliminary inquiry need not be made. But in a case where the facts are not clear and do not make out a prima facie case instantly ?and collection of certain other facts or materials is necessary, a preliminary inquiry may be justified. In any event, before making a complaint, the Judicial Magistrate must have to record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offence or offences mentioned inquiry, if any, as the it records a finding to in Section 195 of the Code. This view finds support from a decision of R N. Misra. J. (as his Lordship then was) reported in Sadananda Guru and Others Vs. State of Orissa. His Lordship held that under Sub-section (1) of Section 476 of the Code the Court was required to record a finding to the effect that it was expedient in the interests of justice that the offences should be inquired into before a Magistrate to whom the complaint was to be made. Mr. State of Orissa. His Lordship held that under Sub-section (1) of Section 476 of the Code the Court was required to record a finding to the effect that it was expedient in the interests of justice that the offences should be inquired into before a Magistrate to whom the complaint was to be made. Mr. Rahenoma strongly relied on Sreenivasan ILR 1975 (2) Ker. 414, the facts of which are almost identical with the facts of the present case except with the material difference that in the case of Sreenivasan the police had reported to the District Magistrate, Ernakulam that in the absence of proper particulars it was not possible to trace out the surety for effecting service of notices on him whereas, in the present case there was a positive report received from the police to the effect that the bailor had died long before the executing of the bail bonds. In view of the facts peculiar to the case of Sreenivasan2, it was held by V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. (as his Lordship then was) that initiating a preliminary inquiry against the surety by the District Magistrate was abuse of process of the Court, since no offence could be attributed to have been committed by him. In my opinion, the case of Sreenivasan2 does not help Mr. Rahenoma to prove his point. 6. It is now to consider if in this case, it was necessary to make a preliminary inquiry and if before filing the complaint petition the learned Judicial Magistrate should have recorded a finding to the effect that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offences. The records reveal that the learned Judicial Magistrate relied upon a message from Jhumpura Out-post to the effect that Mangal Munda, son of Tura Munda of Arsala, P. S. Champua, District Keonjhar, had expired since 11-6-1986. No attempt was made to verify whether the person who executed the bail bonds and swore the affidavit of solvency had falsely impersonated as Mangal Munda deceased or he was another Mangal Munda bearing identical descriptions. No effort was also made to call upon either the Petitioner or the convicts to produce the bailor Mangal Munda in person before the Court so as to ascertain his real identity. No effort was also made to call upon either the Petitioner or the convicts to produce the bailor Mangal Munda in person before the Court so as to ascertain his real identity. No notice was sent to the said Mangal Munda bailor to appear in Court in person for the very same purpose. Some respectable witnesses of village Arsala who might have known Mangal Munda deceased as well as the bailor whose names could be ascertained from police source, were also neither summoned nor examined. As this was a case of a false impersonation and forgery of documents in a judicial proceeding it was in my view necessary that the learned Judicial Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have made a preliminary inquiry.. It is needless to say that in the order dated 30-7-1987, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate directed filing of the complaint petition no finding was recorded to the effect that it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offences. In view of these legal lacunae, the complaint petition and its outcome namely, the order of cognizance cannot be sustained. 7. Before parting with the case. I would like to observe that impersonation of a dead man as a bailor for convicts who got advantage of bail from the appellate Court is a serious matter and is a vice in course of administration of justice. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall in the facts and circumstances of the case, be free to make a preliminary inquiry as envisaged in Section 340 of the Code in the light of the observations made above. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 205 and 181 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2 (c)C.C. Case No. 85 of 1987 is quashed.T. S. 15 of 1987. Final Result : Allowed