Judgment · Supreme Court

1A. In the instant case, the sole allegation in the FIR against appellants is that they purchased the insurance stamps from outside the State of UP. However, the said D . act of the appellant cannot be said to be inconsistent with any provisions of Stamp Act or any other rules. Allegation made in the FIR even if proved by the prosecution does not constitute any offence. [Para 27] [1177-B-D]

1.5. The registration of FIR shows complete non- E application of mind as the said FIR also brings within its ambit purchase of insurance stamps done within the State of U.P. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the insurance stamps which has been duly purchased from the State of U.P. itself. The State of U.P. has sought F to invoke s. 64 (c) of the Stamp Act to contend that the action of appellants was 'calculated to deprive the Government of any duty or penalty', but there is no denial of the fact that appellants were indeed paying the duties, . and by no means 'depriving the government of any duty G or penalty'. So, the act of the respondent is nothing but a clear case of Its mala fide intention to harass the appellants. It is wholly Immaterial whether appellants are purchasing the Insurance stamps from the State of U.P. H 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R. A or from any other State. Rules 115-A of the U.P. Stamp Rules itself declares that 'Stamps which are the property of the Central Government'. It is legally untenable to contend that the insurance stamps must be purchased from the State of U. P. only. It must be kept in mind that B s. 69 ·penalty for breach of rule relating to sale of stamps and for unauthorized sale is not applicable as the appellants are neither the stamp vendors nor doing any unauthorised sale of the insurance stamps. Thus, the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal c proceedings launched against the appellants. The order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. [Paras 28 and 29) (1177-D-H; 1178-A-B]