SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 690

2009(3) Supreme 251
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
V.V.S. Rama Sharma & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1529 of 2007)
Decided on : 15-04-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., A.V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Ms. Vandana Mishra, Manish Srivastava, Prateek Dwivedi (for Gunnam Venkateswara Rao), Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Process should be issued only if the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused.

Headnote:(a) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 74 and 75 – The scope of such rule making power of the State are limited to ‘power to make rules relating to sale of stamps’ and `power to make rules generally to carry out Act’ respectively. (Para 13)

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 204 – The Magistrate while issuing process should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. (Para 16)

        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Circumstances under which the order issuing process could be quashed culled out. (Para 16)

        (1976)3 SCC 736; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; (2006) 6 SCC 736; (2009) 1 SCC 516 – Relied upon.

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Purchasing Insurance stamps from outside the state is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Stamp Act – So, the allegation made in the FIR even if proved by the prosecution does not constitute any offence – Liable to be quashed. (Para 20)

        (e) United Provinces Stamp Rules, 1942 – Rules 3 and 115-A – Insurance stamps are property of the Central Government – Hence it is wholly immaterial whether these insurance stamps are purchased from the State or from any other State. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Appellants herein were working as officers in different capacities at relevant point of time in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and were then posted in different offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh. All the three appellants have since retired from the service of the LIC.

        2. On 30.07.2004, a First Information Report was lodged against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 420/409 of IPC and under Sections 64/69 of the Stamps Act in relation to the purchase of certain stamps.

        3. The appellants herein approached the High Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. However, the High Court on 03.08.2006 dismissed all the three writ petitions vide three separate but identical orders holding that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence and there was no ground of interference.

       Finding of the Court :

        Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the final order dated 3.8.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 8967, 10514 and 7227 of 2004 whereby the above three separate writ petitions filed by the appellants herein were dismissed. In the said writ petitions the appellants herein challenged the FIR registered against them under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and under Sections 64 and 69 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short ‘Stamp Act’).

3. Brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of present appeal are as follows:

Appellants herein were working as officers in different capacities at relevant point of time in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short ‘LIC’) and were then posted in different offices in the State of Uttar Pradesh. All the three appellants have since retired from the service of the LIC.

4. It has been stated that various branch offices of the LIC in the course of their business have to purchase large quantity of adhesive stamps for affixation on their policies and for issuing receipts etc. While the stamps used for receipts are the normal revenue stamps, the stamps used in respect of the policies issued by LIC are special ‘insurance stamps’ which are affixed at the rates fixed under the Stamps Act.

5. For the purposes of execution of insurance policies by the LIC, under the law at the relevant point of time, on a sum of Rs. 1,000/- the rate of ‘stamp duty’ is fixed at 40 paise on each policy. In order to execute the insurance policies promptly, from time to time, heavy purchases of insurance stamps are stated to be done by the LIC. The LIC used to purchase the same from the Treasury in any district as well as from authorised licensed stamp vendors.

6. On 30.07.2004, a First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) bearing Crime No. 271/04 was lodged against the appellants at Police Station Bhelupura, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi for the offences punishable under Sections 420/409 of IPC and under Sections 64/69 of the Stamps Act in relation to the purchase of certain stamps. A perusal of the FIR shows that it was lodged on the basis of a letter bearing No. 11912/Stamps-693(P)/2002-2003(83-84) dated 26.06.2004 written by the Commissioner, Stamps, U.P., Allahabad and letter No. 237245-6 (2003-04) Mu, Ra, La. dated 28.7.2004 written by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. It has been stated in the FIR that the Divisional Office of the LIC, Varanasi has not purchased the Insurance Stamps from the Treasury office of U.P. but the same was purchased from the Stamp Vendors, outside of State, which caused loss of Rs. 1,67,21,520.00/- to the State Government.

7. The appellants herein approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. However, the High Court on 03.08.2006 dismissed all the three writ petitions vide three separate but identical orders holding that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence and there was no ground of interference.

8. Aggrieved by the said orders of the High Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. It was contended by the appellants that the FIR was lodged only on the directions of the higher authorities for the purpose of arresting the present appellants so as to humiliate and harass them. It has been submitted that the provisions of the Stamp Act and relevant provisions of Constitution clearly indicates the untenability of the allegations made in the FIR.

9. It is the case of the appellant that purchasing of stamps assumes urgency because the insurance contract must be executed along with insurance policies at the earliest possible time and immediately on receipt of the first premium and if there is any delay in issuing the insurance stamps and if in the meantime there is a death of life assured, then difficulties arise regarding payment of insurance money/claim. As there are v






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top