Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Das vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 17 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 99(2005)CLT137
Author: A.K. Patnaik
Bench: A.K. Patnaik, M.M. Das
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. This is a public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Shri Prasanta Kumar Das, a social activist. He has stated in the petition that he has heard discussions at Cuttack, Bhubaneswar, Balasore, Bhadrak and Dhenkanal that counterfeit Court-fees are being used by some well known lawyers and unscrupulous litigants in several litigations in these areas. The petitioner prayed for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the C.B.I.") to make a thorough investigation into the use of such counterfeit Court-fees in different litigations in the High Court and in the Sub- ordinate Courts throughout the State.
2. On 1.5.1998, the Court issued notice and further directed that a copy of the petitioner be served on the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. On 3.7.1998, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to submit a report and also directed the State of Orissa to file a counter-affidavit. On 17.7.1998, the Court directed that notice be sent to all District Judges of the State to submit their reports regarding use of counterfeit Court-fees in Courts in their respective districts during ten years preceding the said Order dated 17.7.1998. On 21.8.1998, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Deputy Registrar (Administration and Protocol) of the High Court stating, inter alia, that in the Writ Petition not a single material, regarding use of counterfeit Court-fee by any advocate of the High Court or any other Sub-ordinate Court has been indicated and that the allegations in the Writ Petition are wild and vague. It was however stated in the said counter-affidavit that on inquiry it has been found that a forged Court-fee has been used in only one case A.H.O. No. 10 of 1994 and after detection of the same, an FIR was lodged in the Lalbag P.S. on 19.2.1996 and Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 of 1996 has been registered under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420 and 260, IPC and the same is under investigation by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. The Court passed Orders on 21.8.1998 directing that the case diary of the said Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 of 1996.shall be produced by the Learned Government Advocate before the Court and on 28.8.1998. the case diary of Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 of 1996 was produced before the Court and a direction was given to the investigating agency to file a status report by the 7th of September, 1998 on the investigation of the said case. On 28.8.1998. the Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to conduct an inquiry through an appropriate officer in respect of the cases where Court-fees worth more than rupees one thousand were paid to find out as to whether the Court-fees paid were genuine or not. On 28.8.1998, the Court further directed the District Treasury Officer to give all information to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court for the purpose of such inquiry. On 6.11.1998, the Court directed the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, to issue statable instructions to all Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers to inspect records of disposed of cases and also pending cases of various Courts of the State including the High Court and to find out whether fake counterfeit Court-fees have been used. On 6.11.1998, the Court specifically directed that such inspection shall be done in case of suits, etc. filed from 1.4.1998 onwards where Court-fees worth rupees five hundred or more have been used and a report of the inspection be submitted within six Weeks.
3. Thereafter, on 7.7.1999 the Court heard the matter at length and passed an order directing that the investigation into the cases of counterfeit Court-fees be entrusted to the C.B.I.. The said Order dated 7.7.1999 which is relevant for disposal of this public interest litigation is extracted hearing below :
"17. 7.7.99 Heard .This petition stated to have been filed in public interest involves serious allegations relating to use of counterfeit Court-fees and/or Stamp Papers in various Courts of the State. A particular reference was made to A.H.O. No. 10 of 1994 filed in this Court. It appears from records that First Information Report was lodged on 19.2.1996 by a Registrar of this Court which has been registered as Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 343/96, before the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack. The First Information Report was lodged after correspondence were exchanged by Registrar of this Court with the Treasury Officer, Cuttack who stated that the Court-fees filed in A.H.O. No. 10/1994 had not been issued by the District Treasury on 16.9.1995 (that is the date on which the Court-fees were purportedly purchased). The total amount involved is Rs. 1704/-. The records further reveal that nearly 1500 numbers of Stamp Papers suspected to be counterfeit were seized and they were sent to the Deputy Controller, Central Stamp Depot, Nasik Road, Mumbai through the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack for finding out whether they were genuine. The Administrative Officer, India Security Press asked deposit of Rs. 1,50,100/- for the purpose. It came to light during the pendency of the Writ Petition that large number of counterfeit Stamp Papers and Court-fees were seized at Rourkela, a direction was given to the Learned District Judges of the various districts to find out whether counterfeit Court-fees/Stamp Papers were filed in their respective Courts. Reports have been received from some of them.
What has been detected by now appears to be tip of the iceberg The very fact that nearly 1500 Stamp Papers suspected to be counterfeit were seized from one person gives an indication about the magnitude of the problem. Though the Crime Branch appears to have taken some steps in the matter, considering the magnitude and gravity of the allegation and the materials prima facie housing extensive use of counterfeit Court-fees/Stamp Papers, it would be appropriate if the investigation is taken over by the C.B.I. It would be open to the C.B.I, after the investigation is taken over, to move the India Security Press to waive the deposit as desired, since verification is to be done in connection with pending cases. The C.B.I. shall give periodic reports to this Court about the progress made preferably once in every three months, though we are closing this proceeding. It goes without saying that the C.B.I. while going into the allegation of the case, shall also investigate about the possible use of counterfeit Court-fees/Stamp Papers in various Courts of the State, as the cases which have come to light may not be the only ones.
It is pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the State that P.S. Case Nos. 341 and 342 of 1998 of Plant- site P.S. are pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh.
The earlier direction given for verification by authorities shall be continued and the concerned authorities shall directly report to the C.B.I. A copy of this order be handed over to the Learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, Learned Counsel for C.B.I, and to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner."
4. Pursuant to the said Order Dated 7.7.1999, P.S. Case No. 56 of Lalbag P.S., Cuttack and P.S. Case Nos. 341 and 342 of Plant- site P.S., Rourkela were transferred to the C.B.I, for investigation. Thereafter the C.B.I., Economic Offence Wing, Calcutta carried out the investigation and submitted progress report to the Court on 7.10.1999, 7.1.2000, 7.4.2000, 7.7.2000 and 7.10.2000 and after investigations were completed submitted charge-sheets/closure reports before the respective Courts as per the details herein below :
"P.S. C.B.I. Dt of filing Name of Case No. Case No. charge-sheet the Court Lalbag P.S. RC 4/E/99 Cal 8.12.2000 Sp.C.J.M.(C.B.I.), Case No. 56/96 B.B.S.R. Plantsite P.S. RC 5/E/99 Cal 22,12.2000 Spl. C.J.M. Case No. 341/98 (Closure Report) (C.B.I.), B.B.S.R. Plantsite P.S. RC 6/E/99 Cal 22.12.2000 Spl. C J.M. Case No. 342/98 (Closure Report) (C.B.I.), B.B.S.R."
5. The matter was taken for hearing on 15.4.2004 and Mr. M. S. Panda, Learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions :
(i)The Order Dated 7.7.1999 of the Court would show that Court-fees amounting to Rs. 1704/- had been filed in A.H.O. No. 10 of 1994 in the High Court but the said Court-fees had not been issued by the District Treasury Officer and Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 had been registered but there appears to be no investigation by the C.B.I, into the aforesaid case.
(ii) In the Order dated 7.7.1999 the Court observed that the records reveal that nearly 1500 numbers of Stamp Papers suspected to be counterfeit were seized and sent to the Deputy Controller, Central Stamp Depot, Nasik Road, Mumbai through the S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack for finding out as to whether or not they were genuine, but the India Security Press requested for deposit of Rs. 1,50,100/- as fees for verification of the Court-fees and it appears that the said fees were not deposited and the verification was not carried out and the report of the India Security Press has not been placed by the C.B.I, before the Court.
(iii) The Court called for reports from the District Judges of the State as to whether counterfeit Court- fees have been used in different cases filed in the last ten years preceding 1998 and the reports were submitted by the District Judges, but the C.B.I, does not appear to have dealt with the said reports of the District Judges.
(iv) By the Order dated 7.7.1999 the Court also directed the C.B.j. to investigate into the possible use of counterfeit Court-fees in various Courts of the State, but the C.B.I, does not seem to have investigated into this aspect.
(v) By the Order Dated 6.11.1998 the Court directed the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department to issue suitable instructions to all Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers to inspect records of disposed of cases and also pending cases of various Sub-ordinate Courts of the State including the High Court and to find out whether fake counterfeit Stamps/Court-fees have been used, but the report of the C.B.I, does not make any reference to the reports of the Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers.
6. Mr. S. K. Padhi, Learned Counsel for the C.B.I, on the other hand, made the following submissions :
(i) The final report of the C.B.I, would show that Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 of 1996 after it was transferred to the C.B.I, for investigation was renumbered as RC 4/E/99 Cal and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed on 8.12.1998 before the Court of the Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar, against Shri Malaya Kumar Das son of Shri Sridhar Das under Sections 420, 468 and 258, I.P.C. and therefore the contention of Mr. Panda that no investigation has been carried out into the said Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 is factually not correct.
(ii) Copy of the Report Dated 6.3.2000 of the Deputy Works Manager, India Security Press would show that 1500 numbers of Non-judicial Stamp Papers which were sent to the India Security Press for verification were verified but were found to be genuine and hence the contention of Mr. Panda that 1500 Stamps were not verified by the India Security Press for non-deposit of the required fees is*'also misconceived on facts.
(iii) The report of the C.B.I, would show that three cases RC 4/E/99 Cal, RC 5/E/99 Cal and RC 6/E/99 Cal were investigated by the C.B.I, and in RC 4/E/99 Cai charge-sheet has been filed in the concerned Court, but in RC 5/E/99 Cal and RC 6/E/99 Cal closure reports have been filed before the concerned Courts as in these two cases no prima facie evidence was found to show that any offence has been committed by any person.
7. Mr. Padhi cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and others, (1998) 8 SCC 661 in which it has been held once the charge-sheet is filed in the Special Court, the process of monitoring by the High Court ended and no part of the proceedings can remain pending in the High Court. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prakas P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2612 holding that Court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation because investigation from the time of lodging of the First Information Report till the submission of the report by the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. Mr. Panda on the other hand, submitted that this P.l.L. has assumed importance after the recent Telgi case in which a scam of corers of rupees in forged Stamp Papers has been detected.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, the first question to be decided in this case is whether any investigation has been made by the C.B.I, into Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 in which it was alleged that counterfeit Court-fees amounting to Rs. 1704/- had been filed in A.H.O. No. 10 of 1994 in the High Court. As it appears from the report of the C.B.I. that Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 was renumbered as RC 4/E/99-EOW/Cal after the same was transferred to the C.B.I. It also appears that the C.B.I, has investigated into the aforesaid case and after completion of investigation has filed a charge-sheet on 8.10.2000 before the Learned Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar against Shri Malaya Kumar Das, son of Shri Sridhar Das under Sections 420, 468 and 258, I.PC. as it was found on such investigation that the Court-fees Stamp Papers of Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- were forged. Hence, the contention of Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that there appears to be no investigation by the C.B.I, into the aforesaid Lalbag P.S. Case No. 56 dated 19.2.1996 is factually not correct.
9. The next question which arises for decision in this case is whether any verification has been carried out by the India Security Press in respect of 1500 numbers of Stamp Papers suspected to be counterfeit as mentioned in the Order dated 7.7.1999 of the Court. We find from the report dated 6.3.2000 of the India Security Press placed before us by Mr. S. K. Padhi, learned counsel for the C.B.I, that an examination of the 1500 Non-judicial Stamp Papers has in fact been carried out with scientific aids by the India Security Press and it was found that the 1500 Non-judicial Stamp Papers were genuine. The relevant portion of the said report dated 6.3.2000 of the India Security Press is extracted herein below :
"Sr. No. Marked No. of Stamps N.J. Deno. 4 D(a) 1-2 2 Rs. 75/- N.J. 5 D(b) 1-8 8 Rs. 50/- N,J. 6 D(c) 1 1 Rs. 40/- N.J. 7 D(d) 1-2 2 Rs. 30/- N.J. 8 D(e) 1-2 2 Rs. 20/- N.J. 9 D(f) 1-24 24 Rs. 10/- N.J. 10 D(g) 1-2 2 Rs. 71- N.J. 11 D(h) 1-8 8 Rs. 5/- N.J. 12 D(i) 1-2 2 Rs. 3/- N.J. 13 D(j) 1-22 22 Rs. 3.50/-N.J. 14 D(k) 1-306 306 Rs. 2/- N.J. 15 D(l) 1-426 426 Rs. 1/- N.J. 16 E(a) 1-2 2 Rs. 7/-N.J. 17 E(b) 1 1 Rs. 3.50/-N.J. 18 E(c) 1-1 1 Re. 1/- N.J. 19 E(d) 1-11 11 50 N.P. N.J. 20 E(e) 1-262 262 40 N.P. N.J. 21 E(f) 1-2 2 25 N.P. N.J. 22 E(g) 1-398 398 20 N.P. N.J. 23 E(h) 1-18 18 15 N.P. N.J. Total = 1500 Nos. are the Genuine Non Judicial Stamps"
10. The third question which arises for decision is whether the reports of the District Judges of the State called for by this Court in the Order passed on 17.7.1998 were required to be dealt by the C.B.I. Pursuant to the said order, the District Judges of different districts of the State have submitted reports as per details hereunder:
SI. Name of the Substance of
No. District/Judgeship Date of report the Report
1. District Judge, 23.12.1998 No allegation of use of
Balasore-Bhadrak, counterfeit Court-fees in
Balasore. the Court of the Judgeship
for the last ten years.
2. District Judge, 17.12.1998 As per reports received
Cuttack. from the different Courts
of the Judgeship, there
is no use of counterfeit
Court-fees for the last
ten years.
3. District Judge, 21.8.1998 There is no such instance
Keonjhar. of use of counterfeit Court
fees in the Courts of the
Judgeship for the last ten
years.
4. District Judge, 26.9.1998 No counterfeit Court-fees
Kalahandi-Nuapada has been used in the
at Bhawanipatna. Judgeship for the last ten
years.
5. District Judge, 21.12.1998 No counterfeit Court-fees
Khurda, have been used in Courts
Bhubaneswar. of the Judgeship for the
last 10 years.
6. District Judge, 1.9.1998 No counterfeit Court-fees
Mayurbhanj have been used in any
Court of the Judgeship
for the last 10 years.
7. District Judge, 21.8.1998 There has been no use
Sambalpur. of any counterfeit Court-
fees in the Courts of the
Judgeship as nothing in
that regard has been
brought to the notice for
the last ten years.
8. District Judge, 26.9.1998 No counterfeit Court-fees
Ganjam-Gajapati has been used for the last
10 years in the Judgeship.
9. District Judge, 24.10.1998 The official record do not
Dhenkanal. disclose the use of any
counterfeit Court-fees in
the Civil and Criminal
Courts of the Judgeship
during the last ten years.
Since there was not a single report of any of the District Judges that there was use of counterfeit Court-fees in any case, the question of any of the reports of the District Judges being dealt with by the C.B.I. for further investigation does not arise.
11. The next question which arises for decision in this case is whether the C.B.I, has complied with the .direction in the Order dated 7.7.1999 to investigate about the possible use of counterfeit Court-fees in various Courts of the State and submit a report in that regard. In the Order Dated 7.7.1999 the Court observed that the C.B.I, while going into the allegations of the cases shall also investigate about the possible use of counterfeit Court-fees in various Courts of the State as the cases which have come to light may not be the only ones. Whatever cases have come to light have been investigated by the C.B.I. More cases of the use of counterfeit Court-fees/Stamp Papers in various Courts of the State may come to light in future. As and when it comes to the notice of the District Judges and the Presiding Officers of other Courts about the use of counterfeit Court-fees in any case, F.I.R. will be promptly lodged with the Local Police and thereafter the case will be transferred to the C.B.I, by the State Government for investigation.
12. The Court had also directed by Order dated 6.11.1998 that the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department, will issue suitable instructions to all Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers to inspect records of disposed of cases and also pending cases of various Sub-ordinate Courts of the State including the High Court and to find out whether fake counterfeit Stamps/Court -fees have been used. It appears from the records that Treasury Officers/ Sub-Treasury Officers have inspected some of the records of disposed of cases and pending cases. The Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Finance Department, will issue fresh instructions to the Treasury Officers/Sub-Treasury Officers to continue the exercise of inspecting all records of disposed of cases and lodge an FIR as soon as a case of use of counterfeit Court-fees/Judiciaf Stamp Paper is detected with the Local Police and the State Government will thereafter transfer such case to the C.B.I. for investigation.
13. In the recent so-called Telgi Case, scam of corers of rupees in non-genuine stamps has been alleged. Use of non-genuine Judicial and Non-judicial Stamps causes immense loss of State revenue apart from being a serious offence and stringent measures should be adopted to punish those who resort to it. Hence, any case of use of non-genuine Judicial or Non-judicial Stamp Paper should be reported to the Local Police and thereafter transferred to the C.B.I. for prompt investigation as the Local Police may not be able to investigate into such a case which may have ramifications beyond the borders of the State of Orissa. Copies of this judgment will be sent by the Registry to the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Revenue Department, all the District Judges of the Judgeships of the State of Orissa and the D.G. and I.G. of Police, Orissa who will issue the required instructions to their Sub-ordinate authorities/Courts for compliance of the directions in this judgment.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
M.M. Das, J.
I agree.