Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Rahisuddin S/O Nuruddin R/O House on 24 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East / KARKARDOOMA
COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0158222004
Sessions Case No. 54/2011
Assigned to Sessions. 25.06.2004
Arguments heard on 22.01.2013
Date of judgment 24.01.2013
FIR No. 39/2004
State Vs. 1. Rahisuddin S/o Nuruddin R/o House
No.856, Mohalla, Kabali Gate,
Mawana, Distt. Meerut, U.P.
2. Zikrur Rehman S/o Abdul Aziz R/o
193, PhIII, Shahzada Bagh, Inder
Lok, Delhi.
3. Moajjam Khan S/o Afsar Khan R/o
C87/6, G. No.5, Chauhan Banger,
Delhi.
Police Station Bhajanpura
Under Section 489A/489B/489C/489D IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case in which Station House Officer of Police Station Bhajanpura had filed a challan vide FIR No. 39/2004 dated 18.03.2004 u/s 489A/489B/489C/489D/120B IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Rahisuddin, Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan in the State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 1/45 court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C. committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 31.01.2004 at about 5:00 p.m. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya along with HC Surender, Ct. Pardeep, Ct. Ramvir, Ct. Hem Parkash and Ct. Satbir were patrolling the area of C Block Yamuna Vihar, one informer met them there and he informed that one person namely Rahisuddin who deals in fake currency notes was present at MTNL Park Yamuna Vihar and he was about to deal with the fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/ in lieu of Rs.500/. Thereafter, S.I. Dinesh Dahiya deputed HC Surender as a decoy customer and gave necessary directions to him to stuck the deal. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya gave a note of Rs.500/ denomination to HC Surender after noting its number vide memo Ex.PW4/A with a view to stuck the deal and had conducted the sersari search of HC Surender, nothing was left with him. Thereafter, HC Surender proceeded to finalize the deal with informer and remaining members of raiding party deputed themselves nearby MTNL park. On giving signal by HC Surender, the members of the raiding party apprehended accused Rahisuddin. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya conducted the personal search of Rahisuddin and on search 19 notes in the form of Rs.1,000/ denomination were recovered from the pocket of the jacket worn by him and on checking all the notes were having same number, water mark and thread were missing. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya sense that these notes were fake currency notes which were resembling with the genuine note of Rs.1,000/. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya seized the recovered notes after keeping them into an envelope and sealed with the seal of DD. On further search of Rahisuddin a genuine note of Rs.500/ which he State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 2/45 had given to HC Surender was recovered and S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had seized the said note after keeping the same in a separate parcel, sealed with the seal of DD. HC Surender had given one note of Rs.1,000/ denomination to S.I. Dinesh Dahiya and informed that the said note was given to him by accused in lieu of Rs.500/ during deal and the said note was having the same number as was found on recovered 19 notes. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had seized genuine currency note of Rs.500/ given to HC Surender vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C, seized 19 fake currency notes vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and seized one note of Rs.1000/ which was given to him by HC Surender after the deal vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. Thereafter, S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW7/A and deputed HC Surender for registration of the case. HC Surender returned at the spot with copy of FIR and handed over the original rukka to S.I. Narender Kumar. Accordingly, FIR No. 39/2004 Ex.PW3/A u/s 489B/489C IPC was registered and during the course of investigation, accused persons namely Rahisuddin, Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan were arrested.
CHARGE:
3. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 03.09.2004 framed a charge against accused Rahisuddin for the offences punishable u/s 489C/489B/489A/489D IPC and against accused persons namely Moajjam Khan and Zikrur Rehman for offence punishable u/s 489C IPC to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 3/45 PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 08 witnesses namely PW1 Kamal Singh Oswal, PW2 Saleem Akhtar, PW3 HC Subhash Chand Pandey, PW4 HC Surender, PW5 HC Vijay Singh, PW6 ASI Devender Kumar, PW7 S.I. Dinesh Dahiya and PW8 S.I. Narender Kumar.
5. PW1 Kamal Singh Oswal. This witness has deposed that he is working at RR System Pvt. Ltd., 103, Bajaj House, Nehru Place, New Delhi for selling computers and was shown a bill Ex.Pw1 and has stated that this bill has been issued from his shop bearing the signature of concerned employee. He has further stated that the bill pertains to the purchase of two printers. However, he has denied that in whose favour the bill was prepared or who purchased. He has further stated that he had not visited and gone to the shop. He had further deposed that he cannot identify any person present in the Court.
6. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. A.P.P. For the The witness has denied any statement given to the police during investigation. The statement mark1 (statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.) was read over to this witness who has denied to give any such statement. This witness has not supported the prosecution story and nothing has come from the entire statement of this witness against any accused.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 4/45
7. PW2 Saleem Akhtar, This witness has deposed that he is working in a readymade garment shop in Gandhi Nagar. He has further deposed that he has no concern from the house no.T473, Gali No.17, Gautam Puri, Delhi. He has further deposed that this house does not belong to him and was never purchased by him. He has further deposed that he does not know accused Rahisuddin nor house was given on rent by him. He has further denied for handing over any document to the police regarding this house since he is not the owner of the said house. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined by the Ld. A.P.P.
8. In the cross examination by the Ld. APP, nothing has come out against any accused or in support of prosecution case. The witness has clearly denied any statement recorded by the IO and has further denied for handing over any document of ownership of the said house to the IO.
9. PW3 HC Subhash Chand Pandey. This witness is a formal witness. This witness is the duty officer and has proved the original FIR Ex.Pw3/A and the endorsement on the rukka Pw3/B. This witness has been cross examined by the accused.
10.PW4 HC Surender, This witness was with the raiding party on 31.1.2004 headed by S.I. Dinesh Dahiya. This witness has deposed that on 31.1.2004 he was with S.I. Dinesh Dahiya and constable Satbir, Constable Hem Prakash and Constable Pradeep. He has also deposed that a secret information was received by Dinesh State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 5/45 Dahiya and regarding the having fake currency notes of 1000 against consideration of Rs.500/. He has also deposed that he was given one currency note of Rs.500/ to deal with the said person. He has exhibited handing over memo of Rs.500/ currency note as Ex.PW1/A. He has further deposed that informer gave a signal to all the members of the raiding party. He has also exhibited the recovery memo of 19 currency notes as Ex.PW4/B and has also exhibited Rs. 500/ currency notes as Ex.PW4/C. He has also exhibited one note of 1000 denomination as Ex.Pw4/D and has exhibited the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Rahisuddin as Ex.PW4/E and PW4/F. He has also exhibited the recovery memo of computer etc. as Ex.PW4/G.
11.This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. However, in cross examination he has exhibited the pullanda of seal of fake currency notes as Ex.PW4/H and also scrap as Ex.PW4/I. This witness has further exhibited currency notes as Ex.PW4/P1 to P420 and also Ex.PW4/421 to
481. This witness has also exhibited the currency note of 500 Ex.PW4/P582. This witness has also exhibited plastic gunny bag as Ex.PW4/P583. This witness has also exhibited monitor, CPU etc. as PW4/P584 to 592.
12.This witness has been cross examined by the ld. counsel for accused persons namely Rahisuddin, Maujjam Khan and Zikrur Rehman. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness has deposed that he does not remember the number of the notes which were recovered from the possession of accused Rahisuddin and he cannot tell the owner of the house of accused Rahisuddin. This State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 6/45 witness has further deposed that he does not remember whether the I.O. has taken the signature of owner of the house on that day. This witness denied to the suggestion that he had not gone to the house of accused Rahisuddin or that nothing was recovered from his pocket. This witness further denied that all the proceedings was conducted in police station. This witness further denied that accused Rahisuddin was lifted from his house located in Matkewali gali, Chauhan Banger, Seelampur, Delhi. This witness has further deposed that the investigation of this case was assigned to S.I. Narender on the direction of senior officer of Spl. Staff. This witness denied to the suggestion that no rukka was taken by him and all the proceedings/writing work was done at the police station.
13.PW5 HC Vijay Singh. This witness is MHC (M) in police station Bhajanpura and has proved the register no.19, the entry of depositing case property in malkhana on 1.2.2004, 4.2.2004 and 5.2.2004, the copies of the entries are collectively exhibit PW5/A (eight pages). This witness has also been cross examined by the defence. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that he does not remember the time when the pullanda was deposited by S.I. Narender Kumar on 01.02.2004 in malkhana at serial No.1806 and he cannot tell if the pullanda was deposited in the morning or in the night time. This witness further deposed that no time of receipt of pullandas and taking out from malkhana is mentioned in Ex.PW5/A, therefore, he cannot tell the time and the pullanda deposited on 04.02.2008 was also of paper i.e. envelope.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 7/45
14.PW6 ASI Devender Kumar, This witness has deposed that on 8.3.2004, he had collected the six sealed pullandas from MHCM of P.S. Bhajanpura and deposited the same in the office of FSL vide RC no.2/21 and has further deposed that the seal pullandas were not tempered with any manner. This witness has also been cross examined by the accused persons. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that he does not remember how many pullandas were sealed with the seal of DD and how many pullandas were sealed with the seal of NK. This witness had denied to the suggestion that he is deposing falsely under the pressure of his senior officer.
15.PW7 S.I. Dinesh Dahiya. This witness is the head of raiding party on 31.1.2004 and has deposed that on that day at about 5 P.M. he alongwith HC Surender, Constable Rambir, Constable Hem Prakash were present at C Block Yamuna Vihar while patrolling the area. He has deposed that one informer inform to him about one persona namely Rahisuddin is dealing in fake currency notes at MTNL park Yamuna Vihar. He has further deposed that the information was briefed to the raiding party and the 45 persons of the public but they refused to join. He has further deposed that he deputed HC Surender (PW4) as a decoy customer the necessary direction to struck the deal and handed over Rs.500/ note vide handing over memo PW4/A. He has further deposed that at about 5.40 P.M. HC Surender gave pointed signal by raising his hands on his head and at this apprehended accused Rahisuddin and 19 notes of Rs.1,000/ denomination were recovered from his pocket, the same were sealed Ex.PW4/B and genuine currency note of Rs.500/ State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 8/45 is Ex.PW4/C. He has further deposed that Rahisuddin also gave Rs.500 currency notes which was given to HC Surender. This witness has further deposed that one counterfeit currency note of Rs.1000/ denomination was also sealed as Ex.PW4/D. He has further exhibited Ex.PW7/A, the rukka which was prepared by him. He has further deposed about the recovery of alleged counterfeit notes from the possession of accused Rahisuddin.
16.This witness has correctly identified one Indian currency note in denomination of Rs.500/ which was recovered from accused Rahis and it was used by decoy customer HC Surender to complete the deal with accused. Same is Ex.PW4/P582. This witness has also correctly identified 19 counterfeit currency notes in denomination of Rs.1000/ each having number Q2 to Q20 which were recovered from the front pocket of wearing jacket of the accused Rahisuddin. Same is Ex. P 2 to Ex. P20.
17.In his cross examination by Sh. R.P. Singh, ld. counsel for accused Zikrur Rehman, this witness has deposed that all the aforesaid counterfeit currency notes were opened before the ld. predecessor of this court which were tied in one bundle and he cannot say by whom all these currency notes have been separated and all the 6 parcels which are having flaps upon which number of notes etc. are mentioned on flaps but he cannot say by whom these flaps have been pasted. Flaps are Ex.PW7/DA1 to DA6. This witness further deposed that he cannot say writing over the aforesaid flaps is in hand of S.I. Narender Singh. This witness denied to the suggestion that S.I. Narender Singh had pasted flaps on the State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 9/45 counterfeit currency notes or that he had prepared separate parcels of the aforesaid currency notes.
18.PW8 S.I. Narender Kumar. This witness is the arresting officer/IO of the present case and has deposed that on 31.1.2004, he was posted at Special Staff, North East District and at about 8 P.M., the information was passed to him by the office of the Special staff and further investigation of this case has been handed over to him. He has further deposed that he reached at spot at 8.15 PM where SI Dinesh Dahiya, constable Pradeep and 23 other constables were present. He further deposed that accused Rahisuddin was handed over to him by SI Dinesh Dahiya alongwith recovery of counterfeit currency notes and the sealed parcels. He has further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/A at the pointing out of SI Dinesh Dahiya (PW7). He further deposed that rukka was handed over to him with the carbon copy of FIR at the spot. He has further deposed that he arrested the accused Rahisuddin vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/E, prepared personal search memo Ex.PW4/F and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/B. He has further deposed that on the disclosure statement of accused Rahisuddin, he recovered the computer etc. (one monitor, CPU, key board, mouse, U.P.S., scanner, printer, cutter and five cards vide Ex.PW4/G.
19.On the pointing out of accused Rahisuddin counterfeit currency notes were lifted by him and same were found in seven bundles. Every bundle, out of aforesaid seven, was having 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and on State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 10/45 counting same were found Rs.3.5 lac and one bundle of 60 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination having same number was also lifted. Four bundles (each bundle was having 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000/ denomination) bearing no. .......91 were also lifted from the same table on the pointing out of accused Rahisuddin and all aforesaid bundles were converted into one parcel which was sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/H. This witness had also seized the waste material of papers which were used in making counterfeit currency notes vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/I.
20.This witness has further deposed that on 01.2.2004 the accused Rahisuddin led to him at the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman for the recovery in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He has further deposed that he arrested the Zikrur Rehman from his shop vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/C and personal search Ex.PW8/D. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Zikrur Rehman vide Ex.PW8/E and he has further deposed that accused Zikrur Rehman had got recovered one bundle of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and another one of Rs.1000/ denomination from the iron almirah (tijori) of his shop at Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi, which were seized Ex. PW 8/F and he has further deposed that he also seized Ex.P1, the invoice is Ex.PW8/G and has further deposed that both the accused were produced before the concerned court and were sent to JC by declining the request of PC. This witness has further deposed that on 3rd or 4th February 2004, the PC of both these accused was given to him and has deposed that on 04.2.2004 he interrogated the accused Zikrur Rehman and made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW8/H. He further deposed that a sum State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 11/45 of Rs.2.5 lacs counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the first floor of the house of the accused Zikrur Rehman kept in almirah, the same are Ex.PW8/I.
21.During the course of investigation, on 5.2.2004, the accused Moujjam Khan was arrested from Shahdara Railway Station and 02 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.1000/ denomination and 100 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination Ex.PW8/J were recovered from his possession. The arrest memo Ex.PW8/K and personal search memo Ex.PW8/L were prepared by him. He has further deposed that the counterfeit notes were sent to FSL and the report is Ex.PW8/M and Ex.PW8/N and he has further exhibited the case property. This witness has further deposed that he had recorded the statement of PWs namely Constable Pradeep, Surender Kumar and HC Devender Kumar and after completion of the challan and completion of investigation prepared the charge sheet and filed before the Court. This witness has correctly identified the case property recovered from the accused persons.
22.This witness has been cross examined by ld. counsel for accused Zikrur Rehman at length. In his cross examination, this witness has deposed that he had not taken into possession the table upon which counterfeit currency notes had been kept. This witness has further deposed that neither he had taken photographs of that room nor he had prepared site plan of that room. This witness has further deposed that he had not prepared memo of image of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ and Rs.1000/. This witness admits that entire police staff was with him at that time but he cannot say how many of them had seen the images of counterfeit State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 12/45 currency notes and he had not taken any print of any counterfeit currency note from the computer.
23.This witness denied to the suggestion that he had been member of the raiding party at the time of receiving information. This witness has further deposed that he does not remember whether entire market was open at that time including the adjacent shops to the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman and at that time 12 persons in addition to accused Zikrur Rehman were present in his shop. This witness further deposed that he cannot tell about the size and stories of shop of accused Zikrur Rehman. This witness further deposed that almirah was closed but he cannot say whether it was locked or not and he cannot tell the exact size and number of shelves of that almirah (tijori). This witness has further deposed that he does not remember which atricles were inside the almirah except invoice. This witness further deposed that neither photographs were taken nor site plan was prepared of aforesaid shop and almirah.
24.This witness has further deposed that as far as he remember he had converted recovered counterfeit currency notes from the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman either into a transparent polythene bag or white piece of cloth. This witness admits that he had not mentioned serial number of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000/ denomination in the seizure memo Ex.PW8/F.
25.This witness denied to the suggestion that application for remand Ex.PW8/DC was State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 13/45 rejected by the ld. MM as by that time no recovery of counterfeit currency notes had been effected from accused Zikrur Rehman and he had produced concerned case file along with application Ex.PW8/DC before concerned court.
26.This witness admits that on 03.02.2004 he had moved application for PC remand before concerned court Ex.PW8/DE and he had mentioned facts of alleged recovery of counterfeit currency notes from accused Zikrur Rehman in application Ex.PW8/DE. This witness denied to the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman.
27.This witness denied to the suggestion that accused Zikrur Rehman was lifted from his house no.193, PhaseII, Sehjadabagh, Inderlok, Delhi in the morning of 01.02.2004, or that he was implicated in the present case. This witness further denied that he had obtained his signature on several blank papers and that thereafter he was produced before concerned court or that he had prepared and manipulated aforesaid signed blank papers in seizure memo Ex.PW8/G and disclosure statement Ex.PW8/E or that nothing was recovered from the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman. This witness admits to the suggestion that he has not mentioned regarding the recovery of invoice from almirah/tijori Ex.PW8/G.
28.This witness has deposed that the fact that he had gone to the house of accused Zikrur Rehman on 03.02.2004 which he had deposed before this court on 17.05.2012 is not correct. Correct date of visiting the house of accused Zikrur Rehman is 04.02.2004. This witness denied to the suggestion that due to enmity State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 14/45 with the police accused Zikrur Rehman was falsely implicated.
29.This witness has been cross examined at length by ld. counsel for accused Moazzam Khan and Rahisuddin. This witness has deposed that accused Moazzam Khan was arrested from the main entrance gate of Shahdara railway station on pointing out by accused Zikrur Rehma and he had not mentioned this fact in Ex.PW8/J, this fact is mentioned in his CD. This witness has deposed that he had not prepared any site plan of that place from where accused Moazzam Khan was arrested and he had not asked any public persons including railway staff to be witness of arrest of accused Moazzam Khan. This witness denied to the suggestion that the accused Moazzam Khan was arrested from the house of Jafrabad and nothing was recovered from either from his possession or from his instance. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR. P.C.:
30.After prosecution witnesses, statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded wherein all the accused persons denied all circumstances, allegations and evidence put to them and they claimed to be innocent and have been implicated falsely after lifting from their houses. They had preferred to lead D.E. DW1 ASI Ministerial Surender Kumar, DW2 Ct. Shridhar Sharma, DW3 Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, DW4 Sh. Sita Ram and DW5 Sh. Praveen Ranjan were examined.
31.DW1 ASI Ministerial Surinder Kumar No.155 PHQ New Delhi, who has deposed State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 15/45 that the one Zikrur Rehman had moved complaint in the office which was enrolled in register at serial no.18773 on 2.11.2000. He has exhibited the aforesaid entry in the register Ex.DW1/A and complaint Ex.D1/B. He has also deposed that one of complaint Zikrur Rehman dated 8.9.2000 at serial no.14737 is registered as Ex.DW1/C and complaint Ex.DW1/D.
32.DW2 Ct. Shridhar Sharma, Vigilance Police bhawan, Asif Ali Road, New Delhi, who has deposed that he brought original diary register of year 2000 and as per record, one complaint of Zikrur Rehman is at serial no.80 and complaint is Ex.DW2/A and complaint dated 6.12.2000 is Ex.DW2/B. This witness has also verified complaint EX.DW1/B and D.
33.DW3 Rajesh Chaudhary, Principal Correspondent Nav Bharat Times, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, this witness has deposed that the newspaper pertain to Nav Bharat Times dated 6.2.2004 is Ex. DW3/A. He has further deposed that the portion in circle A is the picture of DCP Sh.Praveen Ranjan (DW5). He has also proved the certified copy of the aforesaid newspaper as Ex.DW3/B.
34.DW4 Sh. Sita Ram, SSO PRO Idgah Telephone Exchange, New Delhi, this witness has proved the summon record to the telephone connection no.23650701 issued by MTNL in the name of Zahir Ahmed Munna installed at A4/25C, DDA Flats, Inderlok, Delhi and the copy of allotment letter is Ex.DW4/A. State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 16/45
35.DW5 Sh.Praveen Ranjan, Deputy Inspector General of Police CBI Branch, New Delhi, this witness has deposed that in the year 2004, he was posted as DCP (North) and has further deposed that there was a press conference as per newspaper Ex.DW3/A and has further deposed that the two counterfeit currency notes as shown in circle A were given to him through a source on which he directed the police team to find out such notes and after that the same were destroyed.
36.Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments.
ARGUMENTS:
37.Ld. APP for the State argued and submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against all accused persons.
38.Ld. APP for the State further argued that there is charge for offences punishable u/s 489C/489B/489A/489D IPC against accused Rahisuddin and charges u/s 489C IPC against accused persons namely Moajjam Khan and Zikrur Rehman.
39.Ld. APP for the State further argued that fake currency notes were found in possession of accused persons. Ld. APP for the State further argued and submitted that all the witnesses have correctly identified all the accused persons as well as recovered currency notes.
40.Ld. APP for the State argued and submitted that recovery of fake currency notes shows their intention that they had intention to use the same as genuine knowing that same are forged /counterfeit currency.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 17/45
41.Ld. APP for the State further argued that CPU, printer, scanner etc. were recovered at the instance of accused Rahisuddin.
42.Ld. APP for the State further argued that FSL report reflects that currency notes recovered from accused Rahisuddin is counterfeit currency notes. On these grounds ld. APP submitted that accused persons be convicted under the sections for which they have been charged.
43.On other hand Ld. counsel for accused Zikrur Rehman has argued that PW1 Kamal Oshwal and PW2 Saleem Akhtar who are the public witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution since these two public witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. PW1 who is working with RR System Pvt. Ltd. has deposed that the EXP1 pertains to two printers from his shop but he has never went to any person for its installation and also will not be able to identify the person to whom it was sold. Thus, the alleged prosecution story that the printer was purchased/provided by the accused Zikrur Rehman is totally false. This witness was cross examined by the prosecution but nothing was came out against the accused. PW2 Saleem Akhtar has also deposed that house no. T473, Gali No.17, Gautam Puri does not belong to him and he never purchased the same, thus the prosecution story fails as alleged by the prosecution that this was a rented house of accused Rahisuddin owned by PW2 where the alleged recovery was made on 31.1.2004 in the night.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 18/45
44.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused Zikrur Rehman and false recovery has been shown against him. This was the preplan of the police party and the manner in which the FIR was lodged at the police station as it is crystal clear from the evidence of PW3 Subhash Chand Pandey who was posted as D.O. on that day who has deposed in his cross examination as under:
"The further investigation was entrusted to SI Narinder Kumar. It is correct that name of Narinder Kumar is written in the FIR in the column of I.O. and there is no mention of S.I.Dinesh Dahiya in the said column. Since I have received the telephonic for entrustment of further investigation to S.I. Narinder Kumar i.e. why I have mentioned the name of S.I. Narinder Kumar in the column in the original FIR. I cannot say who telephoned me during the course of my writing the FIR, I have received the said telephone".
45.Thus, it is crystal clear that S.I. Narinder Kumar was already with the police team and a false and frivolous story has been prepared on 31.1.2004 for the alleged recovery against accused Rahisuddin.
46.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the prosecution story again appear a false and frivolous as from evidence of PW4 Surender Kumar. The prosecution story is that on 31.1.2004, PW7 Dinesh Dahiya received an information that one person namely Rahisuddin deals in the currency notes and has been waiting at MTNL park Yamuna Vihar for the said deal and (PW4) HC Surender was deputed as a decoy customer with direction to him to struck the deal and when the deal was conducted, HC Surender gave a pointed signal by raising his hands on his head State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 19/45 and as per signal of this witness HC Surender Kumar, the accused Rahisuddin was apprehended. The PW7 S.I. Dinesh Dahiya in his examination in chief has deposed as under at page 1:
"I deputed HC Surender as a decoy customer and gave necessary direction to him to struck the deal and further at about 5.40 PM HC Surender gave a pointed signal by raising his hands on his head. We the members of raiding party apprehended accused Rahisuddin present before the Court".
47.While the PW4 HC Surender Kumar in his examination in chief has stated as under at page 1:
"A secret information was received by Dinesh Dahiya that one person was giving fake currency notes of Rs.1000 in currency notes of Rs.500/ genuine notes and further............ I along with informer proceeded to the place at MTNL park. Informer had talk with a boy............ In the meanwhile informer gave a signal to all members accompany me to reach there. Search of boy was conducted".
48.Thus it is clear that from the contradiction from the evidence of these two witnesses, the alleged story of prosecution for the registration of the FIR and alleged recovery on 31.1.2004 is totally false and it appears that the whole of the prosecution story is totally false and frivolous and all the exhibits and papers were prepared at the police station and the FIR was lodged later on.
49.Ld. counsel further argued that the same is again clear from the statement of perusal of the site plan Ex. PW8/A, which bears the FIR No. on the top of it, since the site plan Ex. PW8/A was prepared by the I.O. and till that period as per prosecution the Rukka was not handed over to I.O. and the FIR was not lodged State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 20/45 then under what circumstances the FIR has been mentioned on the top of the site plan Ex.PW8/A and regarding this, he has relied in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 536 titled as Ramesh Prakash Vs. State. The para 5 of the aforesaid judgment is as under:
"The number of the FIR (EX.PW3/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the sae handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not received any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (EX.PW3/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents."
50.Wherein in the same circumstances, the prosecution story was found suspicious and the accused person was acquitted.
51.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that from the evidence of all the PWs and specially from the evidence of PW7 Dinesh Dahiya and PW8 Narinder Kumar, it seems that it was only the PW8 who was behind the entire false and frivolous prosecution story. As per prosecution story, PW7 Dinesh Dahiya arrested the accused Rahisuddin and after that the further investigation was entrusted to SI Narender (PW8). PW7 Dinesh Dahiya has deposed in his cross examination that he has not recorded the statement of 161 Cr.P.C. of any witness of the present case. However, PW8 Narender has stated in his chief that he has recorded the statement of HC Pradeep and Constable Surender and has further stated in his cross examination at page 4 in the last para as under:
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 21/45 "It is correct that I had recorded two statements of HC Surender and two statement of Constable Pradeep on 30.1.2004........ which are Ex.Dw8/DA1, DA2, DB1 and DB3, which bears my signature at point D."
52.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that from perusal of these statements under section 161 Cr. P.C. of PW4 HC Surender and statement of constable Pradeep and HC Surender has addressed to IO as "APKO" so many times in their statement, thus it is clearly proved that the prosecution story is false, frivolous and nothing happened on 31.1.2004 as alleged by the prosecution and none of the DD entry of special staff has been filed by the IO with his challan, which were allegedly made by the arresting officer/I.O. during the investigation.
53.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that this is a case of no evidence so far as it relates to the accused Zikrur Rehman. There is no any public witness for the alleged recovery against this accused expect Pw8 SI Narinder Kumar. As per prosecution story, the alleged recovery was made from the present accused on 1.2.2004 and 4.2.2004 by Pw8 SI Narinder Kumar. Thus, PW8 is the arresting officer and also is the investigation officer, which is against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its various judgments.
54.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the evidence of PW8 Narender Kumar is not reliable at all since the same is imaginary and not natural. No efforts were made by Pw8 to join the public witnesses even on the disclosure of present State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 22/45 accused and Rahisuddin. The cross examination of Pw8 at page 4 is as under:
"It is correct that Gali No.17, Gautam Puri was a thickly populated area. Room of recovery was bolted from outside and the same was opened by accused Rahisuddin. The building which the accused Rahisuddin was having tenanted room constructed upto 23 storied..................... I had not called any person from the building or adjoining houses to join the recovery proceedings."
55.The cross examination of this witness dated 19.5.2012 at page 5 is as under:
"I had not prepared any site plan to the place where accused Maozzam Khan was arrested. Many public persons were present at Shahdra Railway Station at that time. I had not asked any public person including railway staff to be witness of arrest accused Maozzam Khan."
56.Ld. counsel argued that from the cross examination of PW8 SI Narinder Kumar, it is clear that as per prosecution story on 1.2.2004 when the alleged recovery from the shop of accused Zikrur Rehman, 12 persons in addition to accused Zikrur Rehman were present but they have not been joined the investigation and neither the site plan was prepared of the alleged place of recovery. The cross examination of PW8 SI Narinder Kumar at page 5 is as under:
"We had parked Govt. vehicle in front of his shop................ I do not remember whether the entire market was open at that time including the adjacent shop to the shop of Zikrur Rehman. At that time 12 persons in addition to Zikrur Rehman were present in his shop........... I do not remember how many public persons were passed on the aforesaid shop during my proceedings" and again in the middle "I had not made witnesses those public persons who were present at the shop when we reached there".
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 23/45
57.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that according to this witness, the further recovery was also allegedly made from the possession of accused on 1.2.2004, when this accused was in police custody. The evidence of this witness PW8 in cross examination is as under:
"It is correct that dwelling houses starts from the point where I proceeded to the house of accused Zikrur Rehman from the place of parking............ It is correct that I had not told to any public persons to join the investigation of alleged recovery."
58.Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PW8 that at the time of alleged recovery, so many public persons were present but he has not made any effort to join the public witnesses with the investigation for the alleged recovery and the evidence of only police persons regarding this is not trustworthy. Moreover, the alleged recovery on 04.02.2004 is made from the present accused when he was in police custody and the alleged recovery was made from the alimrah in a suspicious position and was in possession of the family members and was open to all. So in these circumstances, the alleged place of recovery was accessible to all and it cannot be said that the present accused was in conscious possession of the same. So the whole of the prosecution story is totally false and frivolous and ld. counsel for accused relied in this regard in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4076 titled as Salim Akhtar @ Mota Vs. State of UP in para 8 as under:
"It has admitted that though Lasari Gate locality was only two or three furlongs from the place where recovery was State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 24/45 made but no witness was summoned there, it, therefore, shows that the police made no efforts ...............who was only intimate but was also obliged to him."
59.Para No.12 of the judgment is also relevant regarding the conscious position as under:
"It was held that mere acknowledge of the accused that incriminating articles were kept at certain place does not amount to conscious possession and conviction under S. 5 of TADA was set aside. The principle laid down in the decisions of this Court referred to above is fully applicable here and it is not possible to hold that the appellant was in possession of the articles alleged to have been recovered from his possession."
60.Ld. counsel for accused also relied in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, cited at 2002 (61) DRJ 734 (DB) titled as Shiv Narayan & Anr. Vs. State, wherein in para 24 of the judgment, it is held as under:
"Moreover, at the time of alleged recovery, Inspector Kali Ram Malik Pw30 did not associate any independent witnesses though according to him there were number of people collected at the time of recovery of knife. It is settled proposition of law that on the information furnished ................... but admissibility alone would not evidence reliable."
61.In another judgment cited as 1999 CRI. L.J. 19 (Supreme Court) in case captioned as Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para no.3 that :
"from the evidence of Pw5 Satpal Singh .......... Here as said before public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming................. we therefore order for State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 25/45 his acquittal."
62.In another judgment cited as 1995 CRI.L.J 3988 (Supreme Court) title as Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in para 4:
"he being complainant should not have proceeded with the investigation of the case but it appears to us that he was not only complainant in the case but he carried out the investigation examined witnesses.................. thus the appeal was allowed".
63.In another judgment cited in 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Report titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, the Hon'ble High Court has held in para no.6 that :
"Kamal Singh had to admit that at the time of arrest ........at least I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in his direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
64.In another judgment cited as 2000 (2) CC Cases High Court II case title as Massa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, it has been held in para no.9 and 10 that :
"it is admitted case of prosecution that ASI Arjinder Singh received the secret information that a tractortrolley carrying illicit liquor was going to Village Talwandi Nepalan via Maujgarh and he further found the information as reliable.
10. In these circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of the Investigating officer to take the assistance of the independent witness from a nearby village....................... before acting State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 26/45 upon such statements the rule of prudence requires that the statement of such witness must inspire confidence in the mind of the Court".
65.In another judgment cited as 2002 CFC Cases SC 73 by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana title as Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Haryana, it has been held in para no.4 that:
"The prosecution case rested on the testimony of............... ........ it is not difficult to join reliable witnesses from the public."
66.Another two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as AIR 1995 (SC) 1930 title as Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, it has been held in para no.11 that :
"the counsel for the State, however, vehemently argued that there was no reason for the court to disbelieve the official witnesses... subject to strict scrutiny as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought."
67.In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as AIR 1997 (SC) 2417 title as Sahib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, it has been held that :
"no attempt by police officer to join with some independent witnesses from the locality, accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and, therefore, was acquitted".
68.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that PW8 SI Narinder Kumar is not a State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 27/45 trustworthy witness since there are various self contradiction, unnatural statement and being a sole eye witness regarding the alleged recovery of counterfeit notes against the present accused cannot be relied at all. This witness, SI Narinder Kumar created a false and frivolous story and also prepared false, bogus and manipulated documents which is very much clear from the exhibits PW8/DC, PW8/DD, PW 8/DE.
69.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that Ex.PW8/DC is the first application which was moved by the PW8/I.O. on 1.2.2004 for P.C. remand which was declined by the Ld. Duty M.M. and there is no mention of any alleged recovery against the present accused Zikrur Rehman, so the request for P.C. remand was refused and the present accused was sent to J.C. upto 03.02.2004 through application Ex.PW8/DD. It is very surprising that on 03.02.2004, another application for PC remand was moved by the PW8/I.O. Ex.PW8/DE wherein the alleged recovery has been shown against the accused Zikrur Rehman on 1.2.2004 from his shop. This was done by the I.O/PW8 after manipulating the signed papers which were obtained by the I.O./PW8 on 1.2.2004 when he was picked from his house. Moreover, as per this witness, the present accused Zikrur Rehman was arrested at the instigation of accused Rahisuddin. However, in the alleged recovery memo Ex.PW8/F, nothing is mentioned regarding the arrest of present accused at the instigation of accused Rahisuddin. This witness is also not sure when he visited the house of the present accused on 3.2.2004 or 4.2.2004 as per his cross examination on page no. 1 dated 17.5.2012, thus, PW8 being a sole eye witness qua the present accused and arresting officer is not a reliable witness from State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 28/45 the careful perusal of the cross examination of this witness, so this witness cannot be relied being a sole witness and regarding this, ld. counsel for accused rely in the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as AIR 1994 SC 1251 titled as Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P. has held in para no.6 that :
"As a general rule a court can and may act on the testimony of single witness though uncorroborated provided the testimony of single witness is found out entirely reliable. .................. ...... ..........this court has classified the testimony of a witness into three categories viz. (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable, and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and observed that though in the first two categories of classification, there may not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or rejecting the testimony but it is in the third category of case that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial."
70.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 537 titled as State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh & Ors. has held that the principle for relying the sole eye witness in three way and has held that:
"It is not the quantity but the quality of witness which matters for the determination............ His statement must be confidence inspiring leaving no doubt in mind of the court".
71.Thus, the present witness PW8/I.O. since he is interested witness being the complainant qua the present accused and also sole eye witness and is not trustworthy and some corroboration is required in material particulars. Thus, from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present accused and only on this ground the whole of the State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 29/45 prosecution story is suspicious, imaginary and is liable to be thrown away and the present accused is liable to be acquitted. Moreover, this has also come in his evidence of cross examination that at the time of arrest of this accused, the I.O. (PW8) informed to the wife of present accused at telephone No. 23650701 at page 6 of cross examination of PW8 as under:
"At this stage learned defence counsel shown the arrest Memo........ on phone No. 23650701 disclosing facts of his arrest. It took 23 minutes in giving her information".
72.However, the DW4 Sh. Sita Ram SSO (Section Supervisor) office of PRO Idgah, Telephone Exchange, New Delhi has deposed as under :
"Today I have brought someone record of telephone connection No. issued by MTNL, New Delhi in the name of Zahir Ahmed Munna installed at A4/25C, DDA Flats, Inderlok, Delhi, copy of allotment letter is ExDW4/A".
73.Thus the contentions of the I.O (PW8/C) that the wife of the accused was informed is totally false and fabricated, thus after appreciation of the entire evidence of PW8 it is clearly proved that this witness is a not trustworthy witness and is not reliable and it requires the corroboration on the material particulars, since there is no other evidence against the present accused regarding the alleged recovery, hence, the present accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and is liable to be acquitted.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 30/45
74.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the next aspect is the case property i.e the counterfeit currency notes allegedly recovered from the possession of the present accused Zikrur Rehman and other accused. Ld. counsel want to attention to this Hon'ble Court that all counterfeit currency Notes were produced before this Hon'ble Court which have been sent to CFSL starting from Q1 to Q1842 which were opened before this Hon'ble Court and the same were in one bundle. However, later on they were separated with flap, the evidence of the PW7 in his cross examination at page 2 as under:
"All aforesaid counterfeit currency Notes were opened before the learned Predecessor of this Hon'ble Court which were tide in one bundle. I can not say by whom all these currency notes have been separated. All six parcels which are having flaps upon which number of Notes etc. are mentioned on flaps but I can not say by whom these flaps have been pasted. Flaps ExbPW7/DA1 to DA
6......................in second investigation officer of this case."
75.Thus, the evidence of I.O. that such and such currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused persons are totally false. It was the duty of the prosecution to explain who has separated these notes with flaps and how the I.O/PW7 & PW8 can say without any identification that such and such notes from such and such number were allegedly recovered from such and such accused persons.
76.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that from the evidence of DW4 & 5, it is again clear that the alleged recovery against the accused persons is doubtful and the evidence of DW5 regarding this is also supporting that the accused persons have falsely implicated and the alleged recovery of counterfeit currency notes against State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 31/45 the accused persons was not intact, since, the photograph is ExDW3/A is more speaking and it is crystal clear that whole of the prosecution story is totally false, frivolous and concocted and nothing was recovered from the possession of the present accused or other accused persons from the perusal of ExDW3/A and the evidence of DW5 who is a senior officer and stating in a evasive way, thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged recovery of counterfeit currency notes against the accused persons.
77.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the present accused. However, the present accused has also produced three witnesses in his defence, since the present accused is a man of status and was/is having inimical relations with the police and has already moved the applications DW1/B, D & DW2/B which are the complaints moved higher authorities and this complaints prima facie show that the present accused is a man of status and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to inimical relations with the police and the present accused Zikrur Rehman has been falsely implicated in the present case.
78.Ld. counsel for accused Zikrur Rehman further argued that from the entire evidence led by the prosecution against the present accused, no case is made out against the present accused since the present case is being of no evidence. The present accused was lifted from his house and was falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the present accused, hence, the present accused Zikrur Rehman is liable to be acquitted. State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 32/45
79.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin has argued that as per prosecution one decoy customer HC Surender PW4 sent to accused persons and recovery had been affected from the house of accused Rahisuddin.
80.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin further argued that one public witness PW3 is witness of possession of rented accommodation by accused Rahisuddin and he is a hostile witness. PW1 is also a hostile witness.
81.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin further argued that PW4 HC Surender is decoy customer not corroborated on the facts of uniform with PW7.
82.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin further argued that no public witness to recovery at the instance of accused Rahisuddin.
83.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin further argued that rukka had been sent by S.I. Dinesh Dahiya through HC Surender and D.O. could not disclose as to whose instance case had been mark to S.I. Narender Kumar , PW8 for investigation.
84.Ld. counsel for accused Rahisuddin further argued that no FSL report produced in respect of printer, scanner, hard disk nor no finger print could be got out from instruments.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 33/45
85.Ld. counsel for accused further argued that no sign was put on recovered currency notes by I.O.
86.Ld. counsel for accused Maujjam Khan argued that accused Maujjam Khan arrested on 05.02.2004 from Railway Station Shahdara at the instance of secret informer but no person is witness of his arrest and arrest memo is dated 05.01.2004.
87.Ld. counsel for accused Maujjam Khan further argued that recovery of Rs.52,000/ is effected from accused Maujjam Khan but PW Pradeep who is the witness of recovery has not been examined by prosecution and no other public person is witness.
88.On these grounds, ld. counsel for the accused persons argued and submitted that accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt and they be acquitted from the charges.
PERUSAL OF RECORD:
89.Argument heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on 31.01.2004 at about 5:00 p.m. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya along with HC Surender, Ct. Pardeep, Ct. Ramvir, Ct. Hem Parkash and Ct. Satbir were patrolling the area of C Block Yamuna Vihar, one informer met them there and he informed that one person namely Rahisuddin who deals in fake currency notes was present at MTNL State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 34/45 Park Yamuna Vihar and he was to deal with the fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/ in lieu of Rs.500/. Thereafter, S.I. Dinesh Dahiya deputed HC Surender as a decoy customer and gave necessary directions to him to stuck the deal. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya gave a note of Rs.500/ denomination to HC Surender after noting its number vide memo Ex.PW4/A with a view to stuck the deal and had conducted the sersari search of HC Surender, nothing was left with him. Thereafter, HC Surender proceeded to finalize the deal with informer and remaining members of raiding party deputed themselves nearby MTNL park. On giving signal by HC Surender, the members of the raiding party apprehended accused Rahisuddin.
90.It is further revealed that S.I. Dinesh Dahiya conducted the personal search of Rahisuddin and on search 19 notes in the form of Rs.1,000/ denomination were recovered from the pocket of the jacket worn by him and on checking all the notes were having same number, water mark and thread were missing. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya sense that these notes were fake currency notes which were resembling with the genuine note of Rs.1,000/. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya seized the recovered notes after keeping them into an envelope and sealed with the seal of DD. On further search of Rahisuddin a genuine note of Rs.500/ which he had given HC Surender was recovered and S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had seized the said note after keeping the same in a separate parcel, sealed with the seal of DD. HC Surender had given one note of Rs.1,000/ denomination to S.I. Dinesh Dahiya and informed that the said note was given to him by accused in lieu of Rs.500/ during deal and the said note was having the same number as was found on recovered 19 notes. S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had seized genuine currency note of Rs.500/ given to State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 35/45 HC Surender vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C, seized 19 fake currency notes vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B and seized one note of Rs.1000/ which was given to him by HC Surender after the deal vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D.
91.It is further revealed that S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had prepared the rukka vide Ex.PW7/A and deputed HC Surender for registration of the case. HC Surender returned at the spot with copy of FIR and handed over the original rukka to S.I. Narender Kumar. Accordingly, FIR No. 39/2004 Ex.PW3/A u/s 489B/489C IPC was registered and during the course of investigation, accused persons namely Rahisuddin, Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan were arrested.
92.It is further revealed that S.I. Narender Kumar had inspected the spot and prepared site plan on the pointing out of S.I. Dinesh Dahiya Ex.PW8/A.
93.It is further revealed that S.I. Narender Kumar had arrested accused Rahisuddin vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/E and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/F and his disclosure statement was recored vide Ex.PW8/B wherein accused Rahisuddin had disclosed the name of his two associates as Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan. In pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Rahisuddin had got recovered one monitor, CPU, key board, mouse, U.P.S., scanner, printer, cutter and five cards from his house which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G. State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 36/45
94.It is further revealed that on the pointing out of accused Rahisuddin, seven bundles of counterfeit currency notes were lifted, every bundle, out of aforesaid seven, was having 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination bearing No..........8564 and one bundle of 60 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination having same number were also lifted. Four bundle (each bundle was having 100 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000/ denomination) bearing no. .... 91 were also lifted from the same table on the pointing out of accused Rahisuddin and all aforesaid bundles were converted into one parcel which was sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/H.
95.It is further revealed that I.O. had also seized waste material of papers which were used in making counterfeit currency notes vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/I.
96.It is further revealed that accused Zikrur Rehman was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/C, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW8/D and accused Rahisuddin had got recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/E. Accused Zikrur Rehman had got recovered one bundle of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and another one of Rs.1,000/ denomination from the iron almirah (tijori) lying in his shop which were seized by I.O. vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F. I.O. had checked the aforesaid almirah and found one invoice of printer scanner Ex.P1 which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/G. State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 37/45
97.It is further revealed that during investigation, on 04.02.2004 I.O. had again interrogated accused Zikrur Rehman and recorded his supplementary statement Ex.PW8/H and pursuance to his statement, accused Zikrur Rehman had led I.O. and Ct. Pradeep at his house in Sehzadabagh, Inder Lok, Delhi and pointed out towards one Almirah lying in the room of first floor of his house and he got recovered three bundle of counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and one bundle counterfeit currency notes of Rs.1,000/ denomination and I.O. notice same numbers on them and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/I.
98.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that on 05.02.2004, accused Maujjam Khan was apprehended from Shahdara Railway Station at the pointing out of secret informer and 100 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and 02 counterfeit Indian currency notes of Rs.1,000/ were recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant. I.O. had noticed same serial number of the aforesaid notes which had been noticed earlier. I.O. had seized the aforesaid counterfeit Indian currency notes vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/J after converting into one parcel and sealing with the seal of NK.
99.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had arrested accused Maujjam Khan vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/K and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW8/L.
100.It is further revealed that FSL report Ex.PW8/M reveals that currency notes marked Q1 to Q582 bear the same number i.e. 4AB 205691 and currency notes State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 38/45 marked Q583 to Q1842 bear the same number i.e. 7BL 898564 are counterfeit.
101.It is further revealed that During the course of trial accused Rahisuddin had sent a request letter to Hon'ble High Court which was assigned to this court and same was received on 12.07.2012. On perusal of application, it is reveals that same had not been signed by the applicant. Hence, not maintainable and same is dismissed.
102.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that all accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. have claimed that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case after lifting from their houses.
103.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e. 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D IPC be reproduced which are as under : Section 489A IPC 489A. Counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. Whoever counterfeit, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency or banknote, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 489B IPC 489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 39/45 Section 489 C IPC "489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currencynotes or bank notes. Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 489D IPC 489D. Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. Whoever makes, or performs any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession, any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currencynote or banknote, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
104.From the perusal of record, it has been proved that present case has been registered on the information of S.I. Dinesh Dahiya. In consequence of information of secret informer, S.I. Dinesh Dahiya had prepared the rukka and sent to police station for registration of FIR through HC Surender.
105.As per record, there was no public persons had been made witness to the proceedings despite their presence if we presume the fact that accused Rahisuddin was apprehended from area of Yamuna Vihar which is thickly populated area and it cannot be presumed that no public person might have been there. Further, shop of accused Zikrur Rehman from where fake currency notes have been recovered is also situated in very thickly area and very congested market and it cannot be State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 40/45 presumed that no public person could have met to I.O. as a witness of proceedings.
106.Further, as per prosecution case accused Moajjam Khan who had been arrested from railway station Shahdara on disclosure statement of Zikrur Rehman which is also a crowded public place and public person could have met with the I.O. if he would have tried of make them witness. But in entire story of prosecution it could not come on record that any public witness had joined the proceedings.
107.In light of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion though the possession of fake currency notes have been shown from accused persons and recovery memos for the same have also been got proved on record by the prosecution but on careful perusal of the these recovery memos this court find that same have not been got signed by any of the public person or independent witness. In this regard it is a well settled law as observed in 'Nanak Chand vs. State of Delhi 1991Journal of Crl. Cases, Delhi High Court, page no.1(1991 JCC 1)' that :
"..recoveries proved by the police official who differ on the timings... the recovery was effected from the place that houses of both the sides and yet no witness from the public has been produced, not that in every case the police officials are to be treated unworthy of reliance but their failure to join witnesses from public special when they are available at their elbow, may, as in the present case cast doubt...'... officials have churned out a stereo typed version with material difference of timings, it is a rejection needs no Napaleon on the bridge at Arcola' State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 41/45
108.In case titled as 'Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J.127', Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that large number of people were present at the time of recovery No independent witness produced and no attempt made to join independent witness Statement of official witnesses could not be relied.
"6.On the second aspect also, Miss Khanna has something to say, PW11, ASI Jagbir Singh is the person who in the company of PW 15, Kalam Singh and PW21 Kanchan Dev, HC apprehended accused Pawan Kumar and from his possession the knife (Ex.P1) was recovered. On the recovery memo, Jagbir Singh obtained the signatures of Kalam Singh and Jai Bhagwan constables. Jai Bhagwan has not been produced. Kalam Singh had to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at busstop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a busstop near Subhash Bazar; there would be no person present at. A crucial time like 7.30 p.m. when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Her is a case where it re no efforts was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It play be that there an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I should have an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 42/45 been made and this, by itself, is a circumstances throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
109.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as 'Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi 1999 Cri. L.J.19' wherein it has held that :
"Recovery of country made pistol and live cartridge from the pocket of the accused based only on evidence of police - No public witnesses, even though available, associated to witness recovery Conviction Cannot be maintained. Inter alia, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that it would not be safe to maintain the conviction because the recovery of the illicit arms did not inspire confidence, supported as it is, by the evidence of two police officials alone, unassociated by the testimony of any independent witness. It has also been urged that witnesses of the public were available and neither were they associated nor was any explanation given at the trial as to why they were not associated. From the evidence of PW5 HC Sat Pal singh, it is clear that the police party did not ask any public witness to be witness at the time of search of the accused. Likewise, PW6 SI Mahipal Singh has also stated that no public witness was joined at the time of the search of the accused even though a number of persons were passing through at the time when the recovery was being effected. It is thus evident that public witnesses were available and could have been associated to witness the recovery. It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before, public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offence charged. We, therefore, order his acquittal. He is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith."
110.Further, prosecution has sent counterfeit notes to FSL for analysis of genuineness but had not sent CPU, printer, scanner etc. which was recovered from the possession of accused Rahisuddin by which it can be proved that fake counterfeit currency notes recovered from the accused persons had been produced or using the State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 43/45 material as recovered by the police thereby testimony of PWs could not be corroborated to sustained the charges against accused persons.
111.Further, non examination of witness despite their presence at the spot throw doubt the case of prosecution. If any bonafide witness would have been present there that could have been examined by the I.O. but same has not been done in respect of any accused. Mere saying that accused person had been involved in the present case cannot be believed in absence of its corroboration.
112.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons since it has been proved that no public witness has joined the investigation of the case while from the statements of police officials it is reflected that the spot was a busy road and there were shops. Further, the intention to use alleged fake currency notes has also not been proved on record since no one had seen accused persons using or making these alleged fake currency notes.
113.This court after considering the facts, submissions of the ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for accused persons and perusal of record taking into the consideration, at this stage, this court is of the view that in absence of scientific evidence and its corroboration, prosecution has been miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons with the fact and circumstances of the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the case of prosecution does not inspire the confidence of this court.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 44/45
114.Therefore, this court acquit the accused Rahisuddin from offence u/s 489A/489 B/489C/489D IPC by giving him benefit of doubt and accused persons namely Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan from the offence u/s 489 C IPC by giving them benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. File be consigned to record room.
115.In terms of Section 437 (A) Cr. P.C. accused persons namely Rahisuddin, Zikrur Rehman and Moajjam Khan are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24.01.2013 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ NORTH - EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Rahisuddin and others SC No.54/2004 45/45