Karnataka High Court
Harisha C S vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 September, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12026 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
HARISHA C. S.,
S/O LATE SUBBARAYA C.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.543, 1ST 'B' CROSS,
3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH/CHENNAI
III FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN,
BESANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI - 600 090.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDL. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ALSO AT CBI ROAD,
GANGANAGAR - 560 032.
BENGALURU CITY.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION
WITH RC.7(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 420 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT-CBI, SPL, CRIME BRANCH/CHENNAI, WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XVII ACMM, BANGALORE
SPL. COURT FOR CBI, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.05.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with RC.7(S)/2022/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI for offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 420 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri.S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
3
A complaint comes to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar on 21.12.2020 alleging circulation of fake franking stamp papers. The complaint was in connection with the request of the de facto complainant one Smt M.Manjula. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.7 of 2021 for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner, on registration of the crime, is said to have been taken into custody on 17.11.2021 and was later remanded to judicial custody. He has been in custody since 17.11.2021. The issue was in connection with a crime registered by the complainant one Smt M.Manjula alleging that her husband had been murdered and after the said act, the properties were all changed hands on the strength of the stamp papers generated from the hands of the petitioner who was a stamp vendor. The said crime had connection with two other crimes, one in Crime No.89 of 2020 and the other in Crime No.148 of 2020. The investigation was being conducted in a snail pace.
4. The de facto complainant Smt M.Manjula then knocked at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.4333 of 2021. This Court directed constitution of a Special Investigating Team to go into the 4 investigation and submit its final report. During the conduct of the said investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody. The police, after investigation, filed a 'B' report. The concerned Court directs conduct of further investigation by a different investigating officer. This was called in question before this Court in W.P.No.7784 of 2022. The prayers that were sought in the petition were to quash the order of the concerned Court insofar as it pertained to the direction of conduct of further investigation at the hands of a different Investigating Officer. Further a direction was sought to entrust the matter to the CBI, in the light of a shoddy investigation conducted by the Special Investigating Team constituted pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.4333 of 2021.
5. This Court, in terms of its order dated 03.09.2022, directed the CBI to take over investigation. The said direction issued in W.P.No.7784 of 2022 is tossed by the respondents therein before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has stayed the order directing further investigation by this Court. The matter is pending before the Apex Court. The petitioner is accused No.5 in the said case. 5 The allegation against the petitioner is for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 and 420 of the IPC.
6. After the police filed their 'B' report, the petitioner moved a petition before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.848 of 2022 seeking enlargement on bail. This comes to be rejected on the score that the offences against the petitioner were grave and against the Society. The petitioner then filed a criminal petition in Crl.P.No.1608 of 2022 which was withdrawn in terms of the order dated 12.05.2022. In the light of the changed circumstance of the investigation being directed altogether afresh at the hands of the CBI, the petitioner is again before this Court seeking enlargement on bail.
7. The learned counsel Sri.S.G.Bhagawan appearing for the petitioner would seek to contend that the police have filed a B' report. This Court has directed further investigation to be conducted by the CBI. The Apex Court has stayed the said direction, therefore the fate of the petitioner is now in limbo, as he 6 is neither here nor there in the light of the said orders. He would seek immediate enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the CBI, in connection with Crime No.7 of 2021, would refute the submissions to contend that the allegations against the petitioner are specifically for offences punishable between Sections 255 and 260 of the IPC, they are grave. Therefore, he should not be permitted to be enlarged on bail. He seeks dismissal of the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events and the orders passed by this Court are all a matter of record. This Court in connection with Crime No.7 of 2021 as well, has directed conduct of further investigation/reinvestigation by the CBI. The 7 said direction is now stalled by an order of the Apex Court i.e., qua the other offences against the other accused. The petitioner is accused No.5. What is alleged against him is offences punishable under Sections 255 to 260 of the IPC. Sections 255 to 260 of the IPC read as follows:
"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 312[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 stamp of one denomination to appear like a genuine stamp of a different denomination.
256. Having possession of instrument or material for counterfeiting Government stamp.-- Whoever has in his possession any instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
257. Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp.--Whoever makes or performs any part of the process of making, or buys, or sells, or disposes of, any instrument for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of 8 revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
258. Sale of counterfeit Government stamp.-- Whoever, sells, or offers for sale, any stamp which he knows or has reason to believe to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
259. Having possession of counterfeit Government stamp.--Whoever has in his possession any stamp which he knows to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use, or dispose of the same as a genuine stamp, or in order that it may be used as a genuine stamp, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
260. Using as genuine a Government stamp known to be counterfeit.--Whoever uses as genuine any stamp, knowing it to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 255 of the IPC deals with counterfeiting of Government stamp. The punishment for such counterfeiting could be imprisonment for life or a term which may extend to 10 years; Section 256 makes the person liable in possession of instrument or material for counterfeiting Government stamp; Section 257 makes 9 selling or making an instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp an offence; Section 258 deals with sale of counterfeit Government stamp; Section 259 deals with possession of counterfeit Government stamp; Section 260 deals with using as genuine a Government stamp known to be a counterfeit. All these allegations are made against the petitioner. The overt acts of the petitioner, as found in the charge sheet, is tabulated by the respondent/CBI and produced before the Court, the same is as follows:
"Sl.No. Content
1 In the presence of witness, the Police has seized
various fake stamp papers of denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.750/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,000/- from the house of the Petitioner/A-5, which were kept by the accused for the purpose of selling it to his customers at higher denomination CW.61 and 62 were the panch witnesses and they have categorically stated about the aforesaid seizure. 2 CW.75 named Sri.Nanjundappa has categorically stated that he was acquainted with the petitioner when he used to visit Bengaluru DC Office.
A5/Petitioner had informed him that he has various stamp papers and franked stamp papers of various denominations and if any of the customers of CW.75 is in requirement of antedated stamp papers he is willing to sell the stamp papers of denomination of Rs.20/- at the rate of Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- at the rate of Rs.200/-, Rs.100/- at the 10 rate of Rs.300/-, Rs.200/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- , Rs. 500/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and gave his mobile numbers, he is willing to sell them. Further CW.75 states that the A5/petitioner had sold various stamp papers to himself as well as his customers. The A5/petitioner deceived them by providing fake stamp papers and they believed that stamp papers provided by the petitioner were to be genuine.
3 CW.76 named Sri. Sreenath has categorically stated that he was acquainted with the petitioner when he used to visit Bengaluru DC Office.
A5/petitioner had informed him that he has various stamp papers and franked stamp papers of various denominations and if any of the customers of CW.76 is in requirement of antedated stamp papers he is willing to sell the stamp papers of denomination of Rs.20/- at the rate of Rs.100/-, at Rs.50/- at the rate of Rs.200/-, Rs.100/- at the rate of Rs.300/-, Rs.200/-, at the rate of Rs.500/-, Rs.500/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- and gave his mobile numbers, he is willing to sell them. Further CW.75 states that A5/petitioner had sold various stamp papers to himself as well as his customers. The A5/petitioner deceived them by providing fake stamp papers and they believed that stamp papers provided by the petitioner were to be genuine. 4 CW.77 named Sri.Selvaraj has categorically stated that he was acquainted with the petitioner when he used to visit Bengaluru DC Office. A5/petitioner had informed him that he has various stamp papers and franked stamp papers of various denominations and if any of the customers of CW.77 is in requirement of antedated stamp papers and franked stamp papers of various denominations and if any of the customers of CW.77 is in requirement of antedated stamp papers he is willing to sell the rate of Rs.100/-, Rs.50/- at the rate of Rs.200/-, Rs.100/- at the rate of Rs.300/-, Rs.200/- at the rate of Rs.500/-, 11 Rs.500/- at the rate of Rs.1000/- and gave his mobile numbers, he is willing to sell them. Further CW.75 states that the A5/petitioner had sold various stamp papers to himself as well as his customers. The A5/petitioner deceived them by providing fake stamp papers and they believed that stamp papers provided by the petitioner were to be genuine."
In terms of the afore-extracted tabulation, the police have seized fake stamp papers of various denomination ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.25,000/- which were kept by the accused for the purpose of selling. There are several witnesses who have deposed that when they would visit the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Bangalore they were informed that the petitioner would sell any kind of denomination of stamp paper.
11. C.Ws.75 to 77 have deposed which would clearly point at the petitioner for using stamp papers knowing it to be a counterfeit. Though the charge sheet is filed in the matter, the offences against the petitioner are grave enough, as they are punishable with imprisonment for life. It is an offence against the Society; against the State; against the revenue of the State. If it were to be an offence which is qua individuals or private person, the filing of the 12 charge sheet would have been a circumstance which would enure to the benefit of the petitioner for his enlargement on bail. In the light of the offences being under Sections 255 to 260 of the IPC, the petition seeking enlargement on bail cannot be considered in his favour.
For the aforesaid reasons petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court, on any changed circumstance in future, be it an order passed by the Apex Court in the pending petition concerning a connected crime.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:SS