IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22568 of 2005 Kalikant Jha, son of Late Pt.Anirudh Jha, resident of Mohalla-Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 10, P.S.- Digha, Post- Keshrinagar, Patna-800 024 … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Opposite Party No.1 2. Om Prakash Singh, I/C O.T.S-cum-Legal, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Indira Bhawan, 4th Floor, Ram Charit Singh Path, Patna-1 Informant- O. P. No.-2 ----------- For the petitioner :- M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate :- R. K. Shukla, Advocate Advocate for B.I.C.I.C.O. : Mr. Mayank Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. 14 11.04.2011 The Assistant Legal Manager of the BICICO has filed this complaint case alleging that he engaged the petitioner as a lawyer to represent BICICO in the cases pending in different courts. For the purpose of pursuing the certificate case certain amount of money were given by way of advance to the counsel appearing on behalf of the BICICO. The stamps that were filed later turned to be forged one. This, wide-spread malady was present in the different courts, stamp vendors were selling forged stamps which resulted in the installation of franking machine in many places/cities. This Court may take cognizance of the fact that it is well known fact that a client or a clerk purchases stamps directly from the 2 stamps vendors, it is not possible for the counsels to go to stamp vendors and purchase the stamps and in about 95 per cent where the clerk who purchases the stamp has no idea whether the stamp he has purchased is genuine or not, as he is not expert. Thus, on most occasions even the clerk does not have the opportunity to know that the stamps are forged one. In this particular case stamps purchased were sent for examination before the Treasury Officer who has given a report as contained in Annexure-9 which indicates that he is not able to verity or express opinion whether the stamp purchased were genuine or not. Without verifying and even examining the role of the petitioner in the said purchase of stamp he has been made accused in this case. The right person to pursue in the matter, is the stamp vendor who sold the stamps to the petitioner. It has been mentioned that one Suresh Kumar Gupta had sold such stamps. However, Suresh Kumar Gupta has not been made accused in this case. It can be noted that the money for purchase of stamps was paid by cheques and it was not a cash transaction and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner was in connivance with the stamp 3 vendor for the purchase of the said stamps. In the result I quash the prosecution dated 05.05.2005 in S.K. Puri P.S.Case No. 81 of 2005. This application is thus allowed. Ashwini/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)