Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Himanshu @ Hemant @ Rajendra Bhatt, was one of the accused in Sessions Case No.468 of 2005 arising from a complaint by the Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda on 3rd September 2004. The complaint alleged that twenty-five borrowers, including the petitioner, submitted forged documents to obtain loans, leading to C.R. No.702 of 2004 at Goregaon Police Station. Investigation revealed that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs.12.50 lakhs by submitting forged documents of M/s.Regal Enterprises and Hermitage Constructions for a non-existent property at Shivling, Kashimira, Mira Road, Thane. The franking impressions, stamp duty receipts, and registration receipts were forged/bogus. The petitioner also opened a bogus account in Union Bank of India in the name of M/s.Ravi Development, where a pay order of Rs.30,00,000/- belonging to another borrower was deposited. The petitioner filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of the Sessions Court dated 31st January 2011 in Miscellaneous Application No.233 of 2009, which deleted Section 255 of IPC from the charges. The petitioner sought that the trial be conducted by the Court of Magistrate. The High Court examined Section 255 IPC, which penalizes counterfeiting government stamps. The court held that the allegations of making bogus franking impressions on sale agreements prima facie constitute counterfeiting of government stamps under Section 255 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Sessions Court was directed to proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offence - Section 255 IPC - Counterfeiting Government Stamp - The petitioner challenged the deletion of Section 255 IPC by the Sessions Court, arguing that the offence was not made out. The High Court held that the allegations of making bogus franking impressions on sale agreements prima facie constitute counterfeiting of government stamps under Section 255 IPC, which is triable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in deleting Section 255 of IPC from the charges and whether the trial should be conducted by the Court of Magistrate.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations prima facie constitute counterfeiting of government stamps under Section 255 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to proceed with the trial.
Law Points
- Section 255 IPC
- counterfeiting government stamp
- cognizance by Sessions Court
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
