1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.757 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.979 OF 2009 Narsinha Rajaram Sawant .... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent. Mr. V.G. Mehta for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6th July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been convicted for an offence punishable under sections 255 and 256 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years respectively and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Applicant is in jail for last 1 year and 4 months. 2 3. Counsel for the applicant firstly submitted that the panch witness has not supported the prosecution case. Secondly, he submitted that though 165 sheets were allegedly recovered, only one sheet was sent to the Chemical Analyser. Thirdly, he submitted that three plates alleged to have been used for manufacturing the said stamps were neither produced alongwith muddemal nor in court at the time of trial. It is then submitted that the Sessions Court also in its judgment and order and more particularly in para 30 has answered point No.2 in the negative. It is, therefore, submitted that the Sessions Court has held that the offence under section 255 is not proved. It is further submitted that one of the important witnesses was not examined by the prosecution. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently urged that the offence in question is a serious offence of fabrication of government stamps. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Sessions Court was in respect of abetment of applicant by accused No.2. He submitted that the Sessions Court found that there was sufficient material on record to infer that the applicant was involved in commission of the offence punishable under section 255 of the Indian Penal Code. He pointed out the last four line of para 30 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has, in fact, observed that the prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has counterfeited the stamps at Art.1 and is 3 guilty of offence punishable under section 255 of IPC. 5. In my view, taking into consideration the material which is brought on record and the fact that the applicant has already undergone 1 year and 4 months of sentence out of the sentence of 5 years awarded to him by the Sessions Court, applicant deserves to be released on bail. The panch witness has not supported the prosecution case. The muddemal also was not produced. There is some discrepancy in respect of sealing of the said muddemal property. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, applicant is entitled to be released on bail more particularly because the appeal may not be heard immediately in near future. 6. Applicant, therefore, be released on bail on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs 5000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station once in a month. 7. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4