SANJAY SHIVAJI DHAPSE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter was called out, none appeared for the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for respondent State and learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 are present. This Criminal Writ Petition is filed, seeking direction to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to register an offense as per complaint dated 29th March, 2005 and 8th April, 2005, lodged by the petitioner. Copy of the complaint is placed on record by the petitioner at Exh. D (page No. 24 of the compilation of the writ petition). It appears that the grievance of the petitioner, as reflected in the said complaint, is that the Insurance Company did not affix adequate stamp, as is required, as per relevant Rules. As per the contents of the complaint, the Insurance Company was obliged to affix stamp of Rs. 10/- on the policy of Rs. 1,00,000/-, however, the Company did affix stamp of Re. 1/- and, according to the petitioner i.e. the complainant, thereby, the Insurance Company cheated the Government for its own benefit. The said act of the Company is very serious and has caused loss of revenue to the Government and, therefore, inquiry should be made about the said allegations and appropriate action may be taken against the Insurance Company.

(2.) In pursuance to notices issued in the petition, the respondents have filed replies. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent company that the Company did affix stamp of appropriate amount as per the Rules. It is submitted that even if allegations in the complaint are taken as it is, without admitting that the Company did not affix the stamp of sufficient amount as per the Rules, at the most, it would amount to an irregularity. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit in reply stating therein that in case there is any lapse on the part of the Insurance Company, it is for the officers from the Government Department to verify and ask the Insurance Company to affix deficit stamp, if any.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is not present. With the able assistance of learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, we have perused the petition, annexures thereto and replies filed by the State as well as the Insurance Company. In the first place, as rightly contended by learned A.P.P., in pursuance to the notices issued to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company did pay deficit stamp duty. Secondly, upon reading the contents of the complaint, in its entirety, not affixing stamp of adequate amount would attract irregularity and it is always subject to verification/check by the concerned Government Department.