* 1 * Cri.Revn.Appln.358.2010 6.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2010 Mr. Farukh Shafi Sarang ..... Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mr. E.B. Dixit i/by. Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. A.S. Pai, APP for State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 6th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This Revision Application is preferred against the order dated 6th July, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai rejecting the application for discharge filed by the applicant. The impugned order is common to the two applications for discharge. One preferred by original accused no.2, one Jhonson Fernandes and the other preferred by the applicant herein-original accused no.3. The impugned order allows the application for discharge by original accused no.2 and rejects the application of the applicant. The applicant is one of the accused in C.R. No.164 of 2005 under Sections 114, 255, 256, 257, 258. 259, 260, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120(B) read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The complainant is an officer from the Chief * 2 * Cri.Revn.Appln.358.2010 6.7.2011 Stamp Office. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 8th February, 2005 National Co-operative Bank Limited sent 12 documents to the Chief Stamp Office, Mumbai for verification of the franking of stamps done thereon. When the agreements were tallied with the record of Chief Stamp Office, it was found that one of the agreements i.e. agreement of sale between M/s. Y.A. Chunawala and M/s. Siddhivinayak Builders and Kiran Dave (accused no.1) was bogus. The complainant, Stamp Officer working at the Chief Stamp Office, Mumbai found that though there was entry of franking done inrespect of the document of same nature, between the same parties of Rs.1,42,750/-, the rubber seal seen on the agreement and the receipt did not match with the seal of the office. This indicated that there was bogus franking done on the basis of the receipt of another document and it was shown as if it was done at the Chief Stamp Office. This agreement was used to obtain loan in the sum of Rs.20 lakhs by mortgaging the flat intended to be sold under the agreement. Original accused no.2 procured forged franking on the agreement of sale with the help of a screen printer and forged receipt showing payment for the franking done at the Chief Stamp Office. The applicant herein imprinted the * 3 * Cri.Revn.Appln.358.2010 6.7.2011 rubber seal of Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Andheri and Chief Stamp Office on the agreement of sale and receipt. He also forged the signature of representative of Siddhivinayak Builders. The rubber seals were procured from one Sayyad Sab of Masjid Street, Mumbai through one Ramzanali Ansari. The applicant is also alleged to have destroyed the rubber seals. 3. Original accused no.2 has been discharged on the ground that there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that he had forged the franking on the said agreement of sale by screen printing through screen printer, one Vijay More. The Sessions Court found that apart from the statement of the witness that original accused no.2 had brought stamp papers for the purpose of screen printing, there is no material whatsoever available against accused no.2. Therefore, the Sessions Court granted the application for discharge of accused no.2. It, however, rejected the application of the applicant herein for the reasons stated in paragraph-14 of the order. The reasons stated are as follows : 14. Now coming to the case against accused no.3. It “ is alleged against him that he procured forged rubber seals of Sub-Registar office and Chief Stamp Office and then imprinted it on the forged agreement of sale, after forged franking was done thereon. It is also alleged * 4 * Cri.Revn.Appln.358.2010 6.7.2011 that accused no.3 destroyed those rubber seals. It is further alleged that on the said forged agreement os ale, accused no.3 signed int he place of Siddhivinayak Builders, the alleged developer. In this context, the Ld. Advocate for accused no.3 submitted that the person Sayyed Sab, who made the rubber seal as stated above, is dead. The statement of witness Ramzan Shaukat Ali is silent as to when the sale are prepared, not he claims that those rubber seals are handed over in his presence to accused no.3 by Sayyed Sab. Therefore, bare statement of witness Ramzan Shaukat Ali is not sufficient to put accused no.3 on trial. However, this contention cannot be accepted because in the Summary Part II of the alleged agreement of sale, available on record, there is mention of the name of accused no.3 as witness to said document and that he knows the parties to the document. This fact is sufficient to presume that before agreement of sale is tendered to the bank to obtain loan, accused no.3 was aware about its forged nature. Moreover, the statement of Ramzanali Shaukat Ali shows that the document which accused no.3 had shown to him was bearing rubber seal which are usually used at the Sub-Registrar s’ office and Stamp Office. The statement of Ramzan Shaukal Ali shows that accused no.3 paid large amount to Sayyed Sab and Ramzan Ali Shaukat towards making of rubber seals. These set of facts permits to accept the prosecution s claim that there are ground ’ that accused no.3 committed this offence and therefore he is not entitled for discharge.” 4. In my opinion, the Sessions Court has rightly appreciated all the facts and stated reasons for rejecting the application. I agree with the reasons stated above. It cannot be said that there is no material whatsoever against the applicant herein connecting him to * 5 * Cri.Revn.Appln.358.2010 6.7.2011 the offence alleged in the complaint. It also cannot be said that the record discloses no evidence whatsoever to bring home the offence. Therefore, the Revision Application is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]