Pvr 1/4 wp1117-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1117 OF 2011
Himanshu @ Hemant @ Rajendra Bhatt,
aged 47 years, Indian Inhabitant
202, Yugdharma, Inorbit Mall,
Link Road, Goregaon (West),
Mumbai - 400 063. ...Petitioner versus
The State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of GBCB CID,
Crime Branch Unit No.1),
Mumbai-400 001. ...Respondent ---
Mr.Subhash Jha i/b. M/s.Law Global, for Petitioner. Mrs.A.T.Jhaveri, APP for State.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 17th August, 2012
The petitioner questions order of the Sessions Court in Sessions Case no.468 of 2005 dated 31st January,2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application no.233 of 2009 deleting Section 255 of IPC and wants that the trial be conducted by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner is one of the Pvr 2/4 wp1117-11.sxw accused in the Sessions Case.
2. The Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda has lodged complaint against twenty five borrowers on 3rd September,2004, that such persons produced forged documents with the bank and obtained loan giving rise to C.R.no.702 of 2004 of Goregaon Police Station. On examination of the accounts, it reveals that the petitioner has availed loan of Rs.12.50 lakhs from the said bank by submitting forged documents of M/s.Regal Enterprises and Hermitage Constructions to purchase the property at Shivling, Kashimira, Mira Road, Thane. The investigation indicates, the properties were not in existence. The franking impressions, stamp duty receipts, registration receipts of sale Agreement were forged/bogus. The investigation indicates, that the accused-petitioner has conspired with co- accused and made bogus franking impressions on the sale agreement for commission of crime. The investigation also reveals, the petitioner opened bogus account in Union Bank of India in the name of M/s.Ravi Development and in the said account Pay order of Rs.30,00,000/- was deposited, which was in fact of another borrower Bhushan Goyal, who played identical deceiving renegation without remorse.
3. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code, would not be applicable against the petitioner. Pvr 3/4 wp1117-11.sxw Section 255 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "255. Counterfeiting Government stamp.-- Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- A person commits this offence who counterfeits by causing a genuine stamps of one denomination to appear like a genuine stamp of a different denomination."
4. Analysis of Section 255 of IPC indicates that the person who either counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, would render himself liable for his prosecution with the aid of Section 255 of IPC. The petitioner and other accused are facing charge of conspiracy, therefore, it cannot be said, for breach of Section 255 of IPC it was only Vijay More who carried illegal franking would alone be responsible for illegal counterfeiting. One cannot be oblivious, the petitioner-accused no.5 has used the forged stamped franking papers in obtaining loan and naturally had conspired the stamp counterfeiting.
5. The element of criminal conspiracy conceive an object to be accomplished, a plan to accomplish that object and understanding between Pvr 4/4 wp1117-11.sxw two persons to co-operate for accomplishment of the object. Thus essence of criminal conspiracy is unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the aim is accomplished. The offence has its foundation in an agreement to commit offence. In this case the very plot of getting the document franked illegally, is a part of act forming an agreement which could be a promise against the promise and naturally invites infraction of Section 120B of IPC. These are prima facie observations which flows from documents, showing sufficiency of material against the accused/petitioner.
6. In the situation, deleting Section 255 of IPC or discharging the accused thereof, cannot be permitted.
7. Writ Petition lacks merit. Dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)