Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Apeal 410-06.odt

9. PW-1 Advocate Manish S. Parekh stated about his firm being approached by representative of appellant Abdul Telgi's office to get the necessary stamps expeditiously from the stamp office. He stated that he had given blank Lease Deeds for getting stamped by mentioning in pencil the value of stamp on each document. The representative of Abdul Telgi returned the documents bearing Special Adhesive Stamps in the sum of Rs.9,12,920/- and Rs.7,46,030/- with copies bearing stamp of Rs.20/- each. The stamps were stamped with rubber seals of Extended Sale Counter at Bandra and cancellation in ink. The witness stated that since the representative did not turn up with the receipt from stamp office, he asked Shri Rasiklal Shah to make inquiry with the stamp office and Shri Rasiklal Shah reported after inquiry that the stamps were not issued by the stamp office at Mumbai or Extended Sale Counter at Bandra. He then claims to have met Shri Mopalwar, Superintendent of stamps. He Apeal 410-06.odt stated that the appellant Abdul Telgi was also there and admitted that it was a mistake on the part of his employee and that the documents be treated as cancelled. He states that Shri Mopalwar told him that Abdul Telgi would be writing a letter to the lawyers' firm and against such letter, documents could be returned to Abdul Telgi, who would then pass on the documents for verification to the authorities.

Interestingly Pws-9 and 10 who claim to have been working in Telgi's office do not name any Rakesh Apeal 410-06.odt Sharma as Sales Executive.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant Telgi submitted that this evidence is hardly enough to connect appellant Telgi to sale of any counterfeit stamps. She submitted that if some employees of Telgi had indulged in a malpractice, requisite criminal intention could not be attributed to Telgi. She submitted that in fact, Telgi had himself submitted documents to Mopalwar for enquiry. According to her, there was absolutely no evidence to show that Telgi had any knowledge that Special Adhesive Stamps sold to Purnanand & Company were obtained by his employees wrongfully.

14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted, and rightly in my view, that appellant Telgi cannot avoid his responsibility in face of his writings at Exhibits 16, 16A and 16B. He submitted that Telgi feigned ignorance and made it appear that he had nothing to do with the Apeal 410-06.odt transaction. If that was so, there was no reason for Telgi to put up a pretence of issuing a cheque in the name of appellant Gaikwad, which incidently was not encashed and has not surfaced in the original. The evidence of PW-7 Mahesh Rammasubramanian Nath of the City Bank is about non encashment of a cheque whose copy is at Exhibit 23 drawn by appellant Abdul Telgi in favour of appellant Sanjay Gaikwad. Only photocopy of the cheque has been produced and that too by appellant Telgi.

The witness stated that he knew the appellant Sanjay Gaikwad and had seen him in the office of Abdul Telgi. He also stated that he knew Ramratan Soni whom he had seen accompanying Sanjay Gaikwad in the office of Abdul Telgi. In cross examination, the witness admitted that he was working in the office of Abdul Telgi between October, 1995 and November, 1995. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, pointed out that obviously, he was not in the office in May, 1995 when the documents in Apeal 410-06.odt question were stamped. In cross examination, the witness clarified that the reason for remembering Ramratan Soni was that appellant Ramratan Soni delivered an envelope to Abdul Telgi which contained stamps, and Telgi had immediately asked the witness to leave the office.