IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41055 of 2008 1. Wazahul Quamar @ Kamal Mukhiya, Son of Laqte Hazi Samidur Rahman 2. Afaque Alam, Son of Wahahul Quamar @ Kamal Mukhiya 3. Farooque Alam, Son of Wazahul Quamar @ Kamal Mukhiya All are resident of village Garaiya, P.S. Kursakata, District Araria – Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar --- Opposite Party ----------- 2 29.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 1.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 232 of 2008 arising out of Kursankata P.S. Case No. 38 of 2004. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the raiding party visited the brick kiln belonging to the petitioner no. 1, it is said that counterfeited stamps worth Rs. 76,700/- were recovered from the cupboard situated in the brick kiln. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable in the facts of the case. Section 255 reads 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 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.” From perusal of the Section aforesaid, it is clear that it envisages that the petitioners accused of an offence under Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code should be responsible for actually performing the process of manufacturing duplicate revenue 2 stamps. From the First Information Report as well as the order impugned, it does not appear that the petitioners were found in possession of any material which would indicate that they were in the business of counterfeiting stamps. At the most it may be said that the petitioners were in possession of the stamps in question which would make them liable for offence under Section 259 of the Indian Penal Code, if proven to be true. The second issue raised on behalf of the petitioners is that merely on the statement of petitioner no. 1 that he carries on business along with his two sons petitioner nos. 2 and 3, they have been made accused in this case without investigating, as to who is the owner of the brick kiln and without looking into the licence which would also indicate the ownership of the brick kiln. This aspect of the matter perhaps needs to be examined at the stage of trial. This Court, therefore, partly allows this application inasmuch as it quashes that part of the order by which the Court below has found the petitioners prima facie liable to be tried under Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code. This application is thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)