Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.300 of 1997 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.1997 respectively passed by Sri Alakh Kumar Dubey, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Session Trial No. 53 of 1996. ****** Dilip Singh, Son of Late Satyaki Prasad Singh, resident of village – Bharat Raut (Katra) Police Station – Hajipur Town, District – Vaishali. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 260 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years. 4. The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan is that the informant learnt that one Dilip Singh is involved in the business of counter-feits court-fee stamp causing loss to the government then he 2 raided and seized several stamps and it is alleged that by comparing he found the stamp or counter-feits and hence arrested Dilip Singh and lodged the case. 5. On the fardbeyan, First Information Report was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 255, 256, 260, 467 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After lodging of the First Information Report, investigation proceeded charge-sheet submitted and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The Judicial Magistrate after recording the evidence of six witnesses committed the case to the court of Sessions with an observation that the case comes under Sections 255 and 256 of the Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. 6. The defence adopted the evidence recorded by the court below and refused to cross-examine any witnesses and accepted the evidence of the learned court below. However, in court of Sessions rest witnesses were examined. 7. The trial court took into consideration the fact that there is evidence of recovery of stamps from the house of the appellant. The seizure lists prepared and proved. The evidence of the Treasury Officer P. W. 6 that Dilip Singh had neither license for dealing in the court-fee stamps nor any stamp was withdrawn by Dilip Singh from the local Treasury. The seized stamp recovered from the house of Dilip Singh 3 was produced by P.W. 7. P.W. 8 supported the recovery of stamp. However, the trial court though took into consideration that there is no evidence to show that recovered stamp was ever sent to expert and there no evidence to show that the stamp was fictitious. Though, acquitted the appellant for offence under Sections 255, 256, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 260 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three and half years. 8. Learned amicus curiae, however, contended that there is no evidence that the recovered stamp was fictitious or counter-feit stamp. Apparently, there is no evidence that the said stamp was ever sent to any expert opinion. 9. Learned counsel for the State does not challenge the submission that there is no expert report regarding the seized stamps that they are fictitious counter-feit stamp except the claim of the Investigating Officer that it is a counter-feit stamp. There is no evidence to suggest that the stamp is counter-feit stamp. The I.O. and the informant is not an expert to give an opinion about the stamp being counter-feit stamp. Hence, there is grave lacuna in the investigation that no step was taken to establish that stamp was counter-feit stamp or there is loss to the government. 10. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the order of 4 conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 11. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, shall be supplied a copy of this judgment and he shall be entitled for the fee of hearing payable by High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 30th July, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.