Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Ramneek Kanwar, S/o. Sh. Surender Kumar – Petitioners
Versus
State, Through CBI – Respondent
Crl.REV.P. 104 of 2009 & CRL.M.A. 7523 of 2024
Decided On : 17-02-2026
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Mr. Daksh Jain, Mr. Rajiv Singh, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali, Mr. Sarthak Malhotra and Mr. Bharat Khurana, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State Mr. Atul Guleria Adv SPP-CBI with Mr. Aryan Rakesh, Adv.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and evidence establishing the complicity of petitioners in conspiracy and sale of counterfeit stamps suffices for framing charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 258, 259, 260, 471, 420 - Criminal Revision Petition challenging Charges framed for conspiracy and forgery - Petitioners allegedly involved in selling counterfeit Non-Judicial Stamp Papers, with evidence showing their active participation and role in the scam - No prima facie case established for discharging Petitioners as similar co-accused were discharged. (Paras 1-42)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and it must establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance on precedents emphasizing parity in criminal law reaffirms that similar cases should warrant similar outcomes. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were charged with conspiracy related to the sale of counterfeit non-judicial stamp papers, involving a larger scam orchestrated by main perpetrators.
Findings of Court:
ASJ's detailed order justified the charge framing against the petitioners, citing sufficient evidence of their complicity in the sale of counterfeit papers.
Issues: Whether the framing of charges against petitioners was justified considering the discharge of similarly situated co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was adequate evidence to consider the petitioners culpable, emphasizing sufficient shared knowledge and intent, dismissing any claims for discharge merely based on the disposition of co-accused.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of factual basis for charges. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. investigation revealing the accused’s roles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's analysis of charges against petitioners. (Para 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. legal principles related to charges and culpability. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. principles of prima facie evidence at charge stage. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. details of fraudulent activities and misrepresentation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. evidence of conspiracy and involvement in counterfeit operations. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 8. final evaluation of charges against petitioners. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 9. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners-Ramneek Kanwar and Dheeraj Kanwar against the Order on Charge dated 26.02.2008 whereby charges under Sections 120B/258/259/260/471/420 IPC were directed to be framed against the against the Petitioners in RC No. SIB 2004 E0001, by learned ASJ.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that on 20.08.2001, Complainant Vikas Gupta gave a Complaint to SHO, P.S. Daryaganj stating that he along with his father Sudhir Gupta, is doing the business of Property Consultants from 7B Daryaganj, Delhi. In the conduct of his business, they had purchased Non-Judicial Stamp Paper from Tis Hazari Treasury. About two and a half months back, they had received a call from one Shivani of Capital Services who offered 1% discount on purchase of Non-Judicial Stamp Paper. She gave them the phone number of her Company of which Mr. Sohail Khan was informed to be the Managing Director and Mansoor Ahmed, as the Manager.
3. The Complainant then placed an order for purchase of Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs.26,000/-, on that number, to the Company. The Order was taken by Mansoor on telephone and he delivered Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs.26,000/- in the same evening against which Rs.25,740/- after deducting 1% discount, was paid.
4. On looking at the Stamp Papers, his father had a doubt about their genuineness. They took the Stamp Paper to Tis Hazari Treasury on the next day and were informed that the serial numbers of these Stamp Papers, had not been issued by the Treasury.
5. The Complainant then placed an Order for purchase of Non-Judicial Stamp Paper worth Rs.16,000/- with the same Company, i.e. Capital Services and he also informed the Police about it. The Accused Mansoor came to their office to deliver the Stamp Paper worth Rs.16,000/- and he was apprehended. Case FIR No.0442/2001, P.S. Daryaganj was registered.
6. The Accused Mansoor Ahmed led the raiding party to Flat No. B-39, Pawan Building, Connaught Circus where counterfeit stamps worth Rs.8,35,515/-, was recovered. He also led the Police to Flat No. 333, R.K. Puram, Sector-7 where co-accused Deepak Bhosale and Waseem Shah were found affixing the Stamps on booklet of Ashok Layland Finance Ltd. and Escorts Finance Ltd.
7. The co-accused Sohail Khan led to the recovery of cash of Rs.50,000/- from this premises. The booklets and Stamp Papers were also seized. The further recovery of rubber stamp of Delhi Treasury Tis Hazari, rubber stamp of SBI Pune Treasury, rubber stamp of Stamp Office Government of NCT Delhi, seal of Notary Public Mr. Karamjeet Singh, attestation stamps of Notary Public, stamps of Capital Services and Sharp Enterprises, were also recovered. The first Chargesheet was filed by the Delhi Police.
8. The matter was transferred for investigation to CBI. During the investigation, it was revealed that the Accused Dheeraj Kanwar/Petitioner No.2 had opened a current Account No. 3223 on 10.04.2000 in the name of M/s Capital Services as Proprietor, at Jai Lakshmi Cooperative Bank Limited, Fateh Puri, Delhi, which was closed in 2001. Total amount of Rs.21,33,606/- was credited in this Account from the date of opening till the date of closing. The entire amount had been withdrawn by Dheeraj Kumar. He was also
