Karnataka High Court
Vittal Maruthi Sungar @ Vittal vs State Of Karnataka By Upparpet on 14 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.387 OF 2010
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.130 OF 2011
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.321 OF 2010
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.296 OF 2010
CRL.A.NO.387 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
1. VITTAL MARUTHI SUNGAR @ VITTAL
S/O MARUTHI SUNGAR,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O VIDYANAGAR STATION ROAD,
KHANAPUR POST,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT.
2. ANWAR HUSSAIN @ REHAN @ ANWAR
S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O HOUSE NO.34, ASAR GHALLI,
J.M.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
2
3. SRI A.D.CHETAN @ CHETAN
S/O LATE A.V.DWARAKI
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.49, 9TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
THYAGARAJNAGAR, BENGALURU.
4. SRI NOOR AHMED @ JAVID NOOR @ RAFI
S/O AMEER SAB,
AGED MAJOR,
BUDHVARPET, LONDA, KHANAPUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI.
5. SRI AMJAD KHAN @ NAUSHAD
S/O MOHAMMED ALI MUJAWAR,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O ANSAR GHALLI, PEERANWADI,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UPPARPET POLICE INVESTIGATED BY
CBI BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PASSED ON 10/17.2.2010 PASSED BY THE
SPECIAL JUDGE XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AT
BENGALURU IN S.C.NOS.9 OF 2001, 462 OF 01,
430 OF 02, 557 OF 02, 558 OF 02, 31 OF 04 & 155 OF 06 -
3
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7, 9 &
10 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472
AND 475 OF IPC R/W SEC. 120(B) OF IPC.
i)THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7, 9 AND 10
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255 OF IPC R/W SEC.
120(B) OF IPC.
ii) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7, 9 AND 10
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 258 OF IPC R/W SEC.
120(B) OF IPC.
iii) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7, 9 AND 10
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC R/W SEC.
120(B) OF IPC.
iv) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7, 9 AND 10
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 467 OF IPC R/W SEC.
120(B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF FINE
AMOUNT EACH OF THE ABOVE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3
MONTHS FOR EACH OF THE FOUR OFFENCES MENTIONED
IN i) TO iv) AS ABOVE. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED
TO EACH OF THE ACCUSED SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY
EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN
PAYMENT OF FINE. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3,7,
9 AND 10 PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED.
*****
4
CRL.A.NO.130 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
NAWAZ KHAN @ AFSAR @ IMRAN
S/O HAYATH KHAN
MAJOR,
NO.16, APPAIAHANA LANE, DODDA MAVALLI,
BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN A/W SRI V.SATISH,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UPPARPET POLICE INVESTIGATED CBI.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 10.2.2010 AND 17.2.2010 PASSED BY THE
XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU, IN S.C.NOS.9 OF 2001, 462 OF 01,
430 OF 02, 557 OF 02, 558 OF 02, 31 OF 04 & 155 OF 06
- CONVICITING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255, 258,
420, 467 R/W 120(B) OF IPC.
(i)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 255 OF IPC. R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(ii)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
5
RS.10,000/-, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 258 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(iii)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/-, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 420 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(iv)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/-, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 467 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC. IN
DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT, OF THE
ABOVE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 SHALL UNDERGO
FURTHER R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, FOR EACH OF
THE FOUR OFFENCES MENTIONED IN I) TO IV) AS ABOVE.
*****
CRL.A.NO.321 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
SHOAIB M @ MD.SHOAIB
@ SYED SAMEER,
S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.21,
NOHA STREET, 2ND CROSS,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI I.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION,
6
BENGALURU,
THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE CONVICTION OF
SENTENCE AND ORDER DATED 10.2.2010 PASSED BY THE
SPL.JUDGE XXXV ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND S.J.
BENGALURU, IN S.C.NO.9/2001, 462/2001, 430/2002,
557/2002, 558/2002, 31/2004 AND 155/2006, -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.15 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255, 256, 257,
258, 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 AND 475 OF IPC
R/W SECTION 120(B) IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.15 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND
TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
255 OF IPC R/W SEC 120(B) OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.15 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 258 OF IPC
R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.15 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND
TO PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC R/W SECTION
120(B) OF IPC. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.15
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY
FINE OF RS.10,000/- FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 467 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF
IPC. IN DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT
FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER R.I. FOR A
PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS OF THE FOUR OFFENCES ABOVE
MENTIONED. THE ABOVE SENTENCES IMPOSED TO RUN
7
CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR
DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE.
*****
CRL.A.NO.296 OF 2010:
BETWEEN:
LIYAKHAT HUSSAIN @ AMEEN
S/O HASMATH PASHA,
MAJOR,
R/AT NO.5, 3RD STREET,
MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
SEPPINGS ROAD,
BENGALURU. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
UPPARPET P.S.,
BY CBI
REPRESENTED BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
STANDING COUNSEL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
8
ORDER DATED 10.2.2010 AND 17.2.2010 PASSED BY THE
XXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPECIAL COURT TO TRY FAKE STAMP PAPER CASES),
BENGALURU, IN S.C.NOS.9 OF 2001 C/W 462 OF 2001,
430 OF 2002, 557 OF 2002, 558 OF 2002, 31 OF 2004 &
155 OF 2006 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
NO.16 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 , 472
AND 475 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(i)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.16 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 255 OF IPC. R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(ii)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.16 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/- , FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 258 OF IPC. R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(iii)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.16 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/- , FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 420 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC.
(iv)THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.16 SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS.10,000/- , FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 467 OF IPC R/W SECTION 120(B) OF IPC. IN
DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF FINE AMOUNT, OF THE
ABOVE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER
R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS FOR EACH, OF THE
FOUR OFFENCES MENTIONED IN I) TO IV) AS ABOVE.
******
9
THESE CRL.As COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are some of the infamous "Telgi Stamp Paper Racket" cases, involving almost Rs.25,000/- crores.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2000, Sri.G.A.Bawa, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chickpet Police Sub-Division, Bengaluru, along with his Officers, apprehended Accused No.1 / Badruddin @ Badru and accused No.2 / Vittal Maruthi Sungar in front of Kapali Talkies, Bengaluru. They seized fake stamps of different denominations of a face value of Rs.53,12,400/- and other articles. A case was registered in Crime No.545 of 2000 before the Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections - 225 to 260, 465, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 419 and 420, read with Section -120(B) of IPC. 10
3(a). During the course of investigation, Sri.H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, arrested accused Nos.2 to 11 and 14 to 16 and recovered fake stamps of a face value of Rs.8.5 crores and other documents. He filed a charge- sheet against accused Nos.1 to 23, before the 9th ACMM Court, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.20577 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 254 to 260, 465, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 419 and 420 of IPC read with Section- 120(B) of IPC.
(b). The court committed the said charge-sheet in so far as Accused Nos.1 to 11 and Accused Nos.14 to 16 who were in judicial custody and ordered to separate the case against the accused Nos.12, 13 and 17 to 23. A split- up case was registered against those accused persons in C.C.No.20005 of 2001. A case committed in C.C.No.20577 of 2000 as against accused Nos.1 to 11 and 14 to 16, was registered in S.C.No.9 of 2001. Separate charge-sheets were split up against accused Nos.12, 13, 17 to 23, 11 registered in C.C.No.20005 of 2001 being committed only in respect of accused No.23 and registered in S.C.No.462 of 2001.
(c). On 07.11.2011, Sri.H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City arrested the above named accused No.13 / Abdul Kareem Lal Telgi @ Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Telgi at Ajmir of Rajasthan and brought him to Bengaluru. In view of the seriousness and vide ramifications of the case, the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, by his order dated 22.11.2001, entrusted the further investigation of the case to the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, Sri.S.K.Hegde.
(d). Subsequently, in view of the magnitude of the crime, the Government of Karnataka vide Government Order dated 25.01.2002, formed a Special Investigation Team for investigation of the case known as Stamp Investigation Team (in short 'STAMP IT'). Accordingly, the investigation was handed over to the STAMP IT and was 12 continued by the very same officer Sri.S.K.Hegde, as the Investigation Officer of STAMP IT Bengaluru.
(e). Three supplementary charge-sheets were registered in C.C.No.20107 of 2002(A) as against accused No.13; C.C.No.20107 of 2002(B) as against accused No.18 and his son, accused No.19 and C.C.No.20107 of 2002 (C) as against accused No.26, before the 9th ACMM, Bengaluru City. Those three charge-sheets registered in C.C.No.20107 of 2002 (A), (B) and (C) as against accused Nos.13, 18, 19 and 26 and also the above, were committed to the 9th ACMM, Bengaluru City under Section
- 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Session and registered in S.C.No.430 of 2002. Thereafter, supplementary charge- sheets were filed against accused No.24, in C.C.No.20311 of 2002 and against accused No.27 in C.C.No.20317 of 2002. These two cases were committed to the Court of Session and registered in S.C.No.557 of 2002 and S.C.No.558 of 2002, respectively. The original charge- sheet split up as against accused No.17 being registered as 13 C.C.No.22528 of 2004 being clubbed with the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the STAMP IT as against accused Nos.22, 25 and 28 to 33 in C.C.No.19361 of 2003. The case split-up against accused No.12 was the original charge-sheet in C.C.No.20577 of 2000 and was split up against accused No.28 in C.C.No.20317 of 2002 and a supplementary charge-sheet filed by STAMP IT also registered in C.C.No.20887 of 2002 and was committed to the Court of Session and registered in S.C.No.31 of 2004. The charge-sheet filed as against accused Nos.22, 25, 28 to 33 and supplementary charge-sheet filed by the STAMP IT, pending committal before the 9th ACMM, Bengaluru City on account of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI') took up the further investigation of the matter and the same being clubbed with the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI as against accused No.17 in C.C.No.22528 of 2004. The two cases were also committed to the Court of Session, by 17th ACMM, Bengaluru city, in respect of accused Nos.22, 25 14 and 28 to 33, after splitting up the case of absconding accused Nos.20 and 21. On such committal, the case was registered in S.C.No.155 of 2006.
(f). In the interregnum, a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking investigation of the Fake Stamps Scam by the CBI. By the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.03.2004, the CBI was directed to take up investigation of the 48 fake stamp cases across the country, including the present case. In pursuance whereof, by an order dated 23.03.2004, the Government of India issued transfer of investigation of the case to C.B.I., under Section - 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946. Accordingly, the further investigation of this case arising out of Crime No.545 of 2000 of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City, was registered by the CBI vide Crime No. RC SIJ.2004.E.006/EOU-VI/New Delhi, under Sections - 255 to 259, 465, 467, 468, 472 to 474 and 420 of IPC on 25.03.2004.
15
(g). After taking over the investigation, the CBI submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against some of the accused persons who were already arrayed as accused by the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Police and the STAMP IT. Therefore, all the charge-sheets and the supplementary charge-sheets, which were filed by the above agencies, arising out of the said crime No.545 of 2000 were committed by the Court of Session in the above seven session case numbers and allocated to the Court constituted as a Special Court in terms of the order of the Government of Karnataka dated 15.02.2002.
(h). Thereafter, the Police Inspector, CBI, New Delhi, proceeded with the investigation in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by the consequent notification of the Government of India order, submitted the supplementary charge-sheet on 13.09.2005 against accused Nos.1 to 20 and 22, 23, 29 and 31 for the offences punishable under Sections 255 to 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 and 475 read with Section-120(B) of 16 IPC, under Section - 63(b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and under Section - 13(1)(d) read with Section - 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (i). Accused Nos.21, 24, 25 to 28, 30, 32 and 33 were not sent up for trial on the ground that no case was made out against them and therefore sought for discharge of the said accused. By the order dated 13.09.2004, the Government of Karnataka empowered the trial court to try the Fake Stamps and Stamp Paper Cases with reference to S.C.No.9 of 2001 and the cases investigated by the CBI were also to be tried by the concerned court. Hence, all the seven cases were taken up for consideration by the trial court.
4. The case of the prosecution is that Abdul Kareem Telgi namely, accused No.13 was arrested for the first time in or about December 1993 in GB CB CID Mumbai, in Crime No.91 of 93, under Sections 465, 467, 471, 420 read with Section - 34 of IPC and Sections - 3 17 and 24 of Immigration Act for cheating innocent people by promising to send them abroad for employment. That during his confinement, he came in contact with one Ram Ratan Soni, from whom he developed the idea of manufacturing and selling of fake stamps / stamp papers, etc. On release on bail, Accused No.13 applied for a stamp vending licence, in the office of Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai on 20.01.1994 and obtained a licence, dated 18.03.1994. In 1995, on coming to know of the counterfeit Government Stamps / Stamp Papers, a complaint was lodged by the Superintendent of Stamps against him with the M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, and a criminal case was lodged in Crime No.355 of 1995. He was arrested and thereafter released on bail. Due to his arrest, the licence granted to him was cancelled. Much more of the fraud being detected, against him as well as his associates, various crime numbers were registered against them in Mumbai.
18
5. In pursuance to the criminal conspiracy, he obtained men and material, equipments, machineries, premises, accessories, technical know how etc., to design, develop, print, pack, transport and sell fake stamps/stamp papers etc., with the association of others. A printing press was started in the name and style of M/s.Mudran Offset Printers, at Mumbai. Various firms and bank accounts were opened at Mumbai. With the help of his associates, who joined the crime syndicate, from time to time he expanded his illegal business of sale and circulation of fake stamps/ stamp papers to other parts of the country including Bengaluru. He had even issued the manner in which the fake stamp business should function by his crime syndicate, titled as "Special Points", which were seized from the residence of Mohd.Sayeed, accused No.27 at Calcutta. The said document contains all the details of the action to be followed in respect of running of the outlets for the sale and circulation of fake stamps, etc. Since 1996 onwards, accused No.13 and his associates 19 namely, Badruddin (A-1), Vittal Maruti Sungar (A-2), Anwar Hussain (A-3), Raffi Ahmed (A-4), Ayub Buvaji (A-
5), Anees Khan (A-6), A.D.Chetan (A-7), Sameer Fayaz Dastagir (A-8), Noor Ahmed (A-9), Amjad Khan (A-10), Nawaz Khan (A-11), Illiyas Ahmed (A-12), Byroji Rao (A-
14), Mohd.Shoaib (A-15), Liyakath Hussain (A-16), Pradeep Kumar (A-17), Salik Wazir (A-18), Muzammil Ahmed Salik (A-19), Salauddin Ashraff Mohamed (A-20), Fayaz Ahmed (A-22), T.Thippaiah (A-23), Rehan Baig (A-
29), Sirajuddin Nasipudi (A-31) were parties to the criminal conspiracy in the illegal acts of counterfeit Government Stamps at Bengaluru and other parts of Karnataka, in a systematic and organized manner.
6. Between 1996 to 2000, as a part of such a criminal conspiracy, all the accused planned to commit such offences. They arranged fake franking seals, embossing materials, composing letter blocks, rubber stamps, stationeries, other accessories and instruments 20 etc., for the purpose of the manufacture of counterfeit stamps, as well as franking seals.
7. The fake stamps / stamp papers were regularly brought to Bengaluru, by A-13 through courier services and were being stored in Bengaluru. With the help of his associates they were sold to different buyers as being genuine. The account of such fake stamps/stamp papers, were being maintained by accused No.1 on behalf of accused No.13.
8. Firms were opened in the name and style of "M/s.Citizen Enterprise", "M/s.Prime Services", "M/s.Unique Services", "M/s.Unique Enterprises", "M/s.Cauvery Enterprises", "M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises" Etc., at different places. Through these firms, the accused persons induced genuine buyers like Banks, Insurance Companies, private establishments, individuals etc., and supplied fake stamps/stamp papers and fabricated embossing/franking, as genuine. By such acts of accused 21 No.13 and other accused, the State suffered a huge revenue loss. Various cases were lodged against the accused for the said offences.
9. Substantial material were obtained by the prosecution namely the CBI, with regard to the manner in which the fake stamp racket was being conducted by the accused. Various material documents and objects were seized by them in the course of investigation. Many premises were raided and stamp papers were recovered. Various Bank accounts were opened as narrated in the charge-sheet. It is estimated by the CBI, that the entire racket involved is a minimum of Rs.25,000 Crores. Various bank accounts were opened as narrated in the charge- sheet. The Forensic Experts at India Security Press at Nasik, in terms of the material sent to them, have confirmed, that the stamp and stamp papers sent to them are counterfeit.
22
10. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 313 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.1601, along with M.O.s 1 to 597. Exhibits-D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of the accused. By the impugned judgment, 11 accused were acquitted, 23 accused were convicted and were sentenced as follows:
"1. The accused No.1/Badruddin, accused No.2/Vittal Maruthi Sungar, accused No.3/Anwar Hussain, accused No.4/Rafi Ahmed, accused No.5/Mohammed Ayub Buvaji, accused No.6/Anees Khan, accused No.7/A.D.Chetan, accused No.8/Fayaz Ahmed Belgami, accused No.9/Noor Ahmed, accused No.10/Amjad Khan, accused No.11/Nawaz Khan, accused No.12/Iliyas Ahmed, accused No.14/L.Byroji Rao, accused No.15/Mohammed Shoaib, accused No.16/Liyakhat Hussain, accused No.17/Pradeep Kumar, accused No.18/Wazeer Ahmed Salik, accused No.19/Muzzammil Ahamed Salik and accused No.22/Fayaz Ahmed shall undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine as under:-23
i) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 255 IPC R/W Section 120(B) of IPC;
ii) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 258 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC;
iii) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC R/w Section 120(B) of IPC;
iv) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 467 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC;
In default of the payment of fine amount each of the above accused shall undergo further 24 rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months for each of the four offences mentioned in i) to
iv) as above.
2. The accused No.13/Abdul Kareem Telgi shall undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine as under:-
i) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 255 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
ii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 258 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
iii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC in default of payment 25 of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
iv) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year."
11. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit of set off was granted. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentence imposed, accused nos.2, 3, 7, 9 and 10 have filed Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2010, Accused No.11 has filed Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2011, Accused No.15 has filed Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2010 and Accused No.16 has filed Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2010.
12. Heard Sri.S.Balakrishnan and Sri.V.Satish, learned counsels appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.387 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.130 of 26 2011, Shri.I.Pramod Chandra, learned counsel appearing for accused No.15 in Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2010, Shri. Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for Accused No.16 in Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2010 and learned counsel Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - C.B.I. 13(a). The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the order of conviction passed by the trial court is erroneous. That the trial court failed to consider the evidence led-in by the prosecution. None of the acts of the appellants have been proved by the prosecution. That the appellants had no role to play, either in the manufacture, sale or otherwise of the counterfeit stamps / stamp papers, etc. That they were employed by accused No.13. That they were marketing executives. Their only job was to deliver the papers received from accused No.13. They were not aware that the papers in their possession were counterfeit. That they had no knowledge at all, of such counterfeit stamps, etc. That they were 27 always under a bonafide belief that the stamp papers being given to them, were genuine stamp papers.
(b). It is further contended that even the recoveries were not from their individual possession. The recoveries have been made from the premises belonging to the accused No.13. That, there is no recovery of any material involved in the printing or otherwise of the counterfeit stamps. Therefore, it is contended that, Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. That the appellants had no role to play in the process of counterfeiting any of the stamp papers.
(c). They submit that in view of the mammoth evidence, it would not be necessary to consider the entire evidence as led-in by the prosecution. That they would place reliance only on the relevant evidence and material pertaining to the respective appellants.
14(a). On the other hand Sri P.Prasanna, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the CBI, disputes 28 the contentions. He contends that the trial court has rightly considered the evidence and material on record. That none of the pleas of the appellant were accepted by the trial court. That the pleas of the defence have been negated by the trial court. That the case made out by the appellants, that they are innocent of the offences charged against them, is incorrect. They were very well aware that they were dealing with fake stamps / stamp papers etc. They had complete knowledge of the same. The material and the finding on record, would clearly lead to this conclusion. Therefore, to contend that they were not aware and they had no knowledge that the stamp papers, etc., were counterfeit, therefore, cannot be accepted.
(b). So far as the contention that the seizures were not from the appellants, the same also runs contrary to the evidence and material. The seizures have been made from the possession of the respective appellants. The seizure are to the tune of almost Rs.9 crores. Therefore, when such a huge amount of counterfeit stamps are recovered, 29 from the appellants it cannot be said that the appellants are innocent of the offence. The plea of the appellants that they had no role to play in the process of counterfeiting the stamp papers, is contrary to the evidence and material on record.
(c). The trial court has extensively considered the entire evidence relating to each one of the accused. Therefore, it is pleaded that there is no error committed by the trial court, in convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences. Hence, he pleads that the appeals be dismissed.
15. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. We shall now consider the relatable evidence and material, with reference to each one of the appellants. 30 I CRL.A.NO.387 OF 2010:
a) ACCUSED NO.2 - VITTAL MARUTHI SUNGAR @ VITTAL :
16(a). This accused alongwith accused no.1 was found with counterfeit stamps worth about Rs.53,12,400/-. They were marked as M.Os 1 to 8. Upon the voluntary disclosure by this accused, a raid was conducted on the premises of "M/s.Sri Sai" situated at Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru and counterfeit stamps were recovered, which were marked as M.Os 33 to 56 along with other properties.
(b). PW-6, Sri Doulath Baig, a former employee of M/s.Sri Sai, has clearly stated that he along with other accused persons, worked as marketing executives in the said firm. The same is supported by the evidence of PW-8, Sri R.Ravindra. Yet another witness PW-22, Sri Shaveez Ahamad, was the owner of the building situated at Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, in which the office of M/s.Universal Marketing was established by accused No.1. 31
(c). PW-200, Sri Sayed Sadiq, who was working at Belliyappa and Company, has stated in his evidence that the accused No.2 along with accused No.1, claiming to be a sales executive of Sri Sai, "A" Class Stamp vendor, by showing the Xerox copies of the Stamp Vending licence of Mr.Eruchappan, offered to supply share transfer stamps of different denomination and in this connection the said company purchased share transfer stamps worth Rs.15,000/- from February 2000 to June 2000 as per EX.P961(1) to (34) bills. Ex.P960 is a covering letter issued by PW.308, H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Investigating Officer.
(d). The evidence of PW-205, Modi Anwarulla of Benson Town, Bengaluru, shows that accused no.3, claiming to be Rehman, took the premise No.11, 3rd Main, Vasanthnagar, belonging to his mother Smt.Kamurunissa vide Ex.P112, lease agreement, in the year 2000. This premise was searched upon information by accused No.1 and 2 and counterfeit stamps as M.Os 33 to 56 and other 32 articles were recovered. Accused Nos.3 to 7, were apprehended, when they were sorting out the counterfeit stamps.
17. The evidence of these witnesses would clearly indicate the role played by accused No.2, insofar as the sale of counterfeit stamps is concerned. That he was found in possession of counterfeit stamps worth Rs.53,12,400/-. There is no reasonable explanation offered by him with regard to the possession of the same. This accused had suppressed his true identity and had taken the aforesaid premises on lease in a fictitious name. Nothing worthwhile has been illicited, in the cross-examination that would discredit the said evidence. Therefore, the trial court found it just and appropriate to accept the said evidence.
b) ACCUSED NO.3 - ANWAR HUSSAIN @ REHAN @ ANWAR :
18(a). The evidence of PW-4, Sri V.Jagannath and PW-308, H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the investigating officer, would indicate that on 19.08.2000, the accused 33 was found in the premises of Sri Sai, at Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru while they were sorting out the fake stamp papers along with the other accused Nos.4 to 7. The Police recovered several articles including the fake stamps which were marked as M.Os 36 to 56. Accused No.3, was actively involved in printing and circulation of counterfeit stamps, under fictitious firms by the names of "M/s.Citizen Enterprise", "M/s.Prime Services", "M/s.Unique Services", "M/s.Unique Enterprises", "M/s.Cauvery Enterprises", and "M/s.Sri Sai" etc., at Bengaluru.
(b). The evidence of PW-7, Sridhar Nawada of Essenda Finance, Unity Building, Bengaluru, would indicate that this accused claimed himself to be Md.Rehman of M/s. Sai Enterprises. He approached their company in the year 2000 and supplied share transfer stamps of the value of Rs.4,67,238/-, as per Bill No.2252, marked as Exhibit-
118 and also under a bill marked as Exhibit-P119 for Rs.1,88,856/-. That unused stamps were produced before 34 the Upparpet Police Station in terms of P.F.No.207/2000, which were marked as MOs-256 to 268.
(c). PW-228, Sri.S.K.Srivatsa, Forensic Expert in his report vide Exhibit-P1045 indicates that the unused stamps, were counterfeit stamps. The above report from ISP, Nasik, is not disputed by the accused.
(d). PW-4, Sri.V.Jagannath, is the mahazar witness for Exhibit-P91. He has narrated that this accused was apprehended by the police who led them to the premises No.408, First Floor, Malleshwaram and in the said office, counterfeit stamps marked as M.O.s 248 and 249, being special adhesive stamps of Rs.10, 20, 50 and 500 were subject to examination by ISP, Nasik, based on which a report at Exhibit-P1045 was issued. The report would clearly indicate that they are counterfeit stamps.
(e). PW-21, Sri.Rafiq Ahamad, is the owner of the house bearing No.1779, 9th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. He has stated that accused No.3, would constantly visit the 35 premises which was being run in the name of M/s. Universal Marketing dealing with stamps.
(f). PW-35, Smt.B.K.Lakshmi, who is the owner of the house property bearing No.666/49, 9th main, 4th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, had given the said premises on rent to accused No.3. She has furnished the lease agreement which has been marked as Exhibit-P425.
(g). PW-188, Sri.Mahesh, the then Assistant Manager, Centurion Bank of Punjab, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru, has stated that as per the letter marked as Exhibits - P.628, statement of particulars as per Exhibit- P.629, 38 cheques at Exhibit P.630 (1) to (38) and pay-in slips marked as Exhibit-P.632 (1) to (23) were produced before the CBI, I.O., as per Exhibit-P.631 letters, pertaining to Centurion Bank which shows the involvement of accused No.3 in dealing with the account of M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises.
36
(h). PW-205, Sri.Modi Anwarulla has stated that accused No.3, claiming to be Mohammed Rehan, had rented the first floor of the house belonging to his mother, situated at Vasantha Nagar, Bengaluru on a monthly rent of Rs.7,750/-. The property was searched at the instance of accused No.1 on 19.08.2000 and counterfeit stamps were recovered as MOs 33 to 56. The same stands supported by the findings of the Police Inspector, PW-308, Sri.H.J.Mariswamy Gowda and PW-312, Sri.S.K.Hegde, the Investigating Officer.
19. Therefore, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses with reference to the above accused, would clearly indicate the involvement of this accused so far as the recovery of the counterfeit stamps / stamp papers, adhesive fake stamps, share transfer stamps etc. and various material involved in the manufacturing of counterfeit stamp papers. This accused had suppressed his true identity and had taken the aforesaid premises on lease in a fictitious name. There is nothing worthwhile that 37 was elicited in the cross-examination, to disbelieve the same. The trial court having accepted the said evidence, was of the view that accused no.3, was guilty of the offences charged against him.
c) ACCUSED NO.7 - SRI.A.D.CHETAN @ CHETAN:
20(a). The evidence of PW.308 - Sri.H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Police Inspector,
Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru city is to the effect that this accused was found along with the other accused Nos.3 to 6 in the office of M/s.Sri Sai at Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. They were found sorting out the counterfeit stamps. He was apprehended along with several material objects in terms of Ex.P31 which included counterfeit stamps marked as M.Os.33 to 56. The said M.Os. are counterfeit stamps being established by the evidence of PW.228 -Sri.R.K.Srivatsav, Works Manager, ISP, Nasik in terms of his report marked as Ex.P1045. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of 38 this witness to disbelieve him. The evidence of PW.4, V.Jagannath who is a panch witness supports the evidence of PW.308.
(b). The evidence of PW.21 - Rafiq Ahamad discloses that this accused frequently visited the premises of M/s.Sri Sai, No.1779, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru taken on lease by accused No.18 -Wazir Ahamad Salik. The evidence of PW-12 and PW-308 goes to show that in the said premises, counterfeit stamps were recovered separately under a different mahazar. The evidence of PW.22 -Shaveez Ahamad also proves this fact. The evidence of PW.21 and 22 cannot be disbelieved since nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- examination.
(c). PW.40-Sri.R.Chandrashekar, the then employee of Fouress Engineering India Limited, Bengaluru, has stated that this accused represented himself to be an executive of M/s.Sri Sai. Between 29.1.2000 and 39 14.8.2000, he supplied stamps which are marked as M.Os.393 and 394. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.201 -Vali Basha, PSI, who recovered the same under Ex.P435 mahazar. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence.
(d). The evidence of PW.43 -Sri.S.K.Murali, the then Personal Assistant at Sonal Garments, Yeshwanthapur indicates that this accused claiming to be an executive representative of M/s.Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, had sold 32000 revenue stamps of Re.1/- each and out of which, Rs.1,000/- revenue stamps were recovered under Ex.P108-mahazar which were marked as M.Os.254 and
255. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.240 -Anantha Raju Naidu, the then PSI of Upparpet Police Station. The stamps which were marked as M.Os.254 and 255 were established as counterfeit stamps as per the report of PW.228 Sri.R.K.Srivatsav marked as Ex.P1045.
40
(e). PW.51 -Devaraj Urs, Accounts Assistant of Textport Overseas, Bengaluru, has stated that during December 1999, the accused claiming to be a representative of M/s.Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, supplied revenue stamps and non-judicial stamps marked as M.Os.415 to 420. The evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.240 - Anantharaju Naidu, PSI, Upparpet Police Station. The stamps were marked as M.Os.415 to 420 and are proved as counterfeit stamps by the evidence of PW.228-Sri.R.K.Srivatsav, the then Works Manager, ISP, Nasik in terms of the report Ex.P1045.
(f). PW.56 -Sri.Pankaj, Manager of Dinesh Exports, Mahalaxmipuram, Bengaluru, has stated that this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s.Sri Sai, Stamp Vendor, supplied revenue stamps, in the year 1999. The seizure of the stamps at the instance of this accused from Sonal Garments, as stated hereinabove, is supported by the evidence of the PW.4-Sri. V.Jagannath and Ex.P108. 41
(g). PW.100 - Sundareshwar of Tata Tea Company has stated that in January 2000, this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s Sri.Sai, 'A' Class stamp vendor, supplied stamps on six to seven occasions under the bills marked as Ex.P.696 and received amounts in terms of the payment vouchers marked as Ex.P.698(1) and (2). Further he has stated that M.Os. 482(1) to (37), 483(1) to (2) are unused stamps seized by PW.312-S.K.Hegde, ACP, STAMP IT. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.312 and the evidence of PW.223-Prakash. S Ughade, Deputy Works Manager, ISP, Nasik in terms of the report marked as Ex.P1015 which would indicate that the stamps are counterfeit.
(h). PW.6 -Daulath Baig has stated that this accused along with other accused were working as Marketing Executives at M/s Sri Sai, Stamp vendor, Vasanthanagar.
42
(i). PW.45 -M.G.Ravikumar, Accountant of Indirect Taxes, Ingersoll Rand Company, has stated that this accused representing himself to be a sales executive of M/s Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, supplied stamp papers, out of which stamps marked as M.Os.395 & 396 are unused stamps. The evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.201-Vali Basha, PSI. The evidence of PW.228-Sri R.K. Srivatsav, supported by the report at Ex.P.1045, indicates that these stamps are counterfeit stamps dealt by this accused.
(j). PW.216-Smt.Shyamala, cashier of M/s Sri Sai Security Press Limited, Peenya has stated that this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, supplied the stamps from the year 1999 to August 2000 worth Rs.3,200/- under bills marked as Exs.P.987(1) to (8).
(k). PW.305-Vijaykumar, an employee of Process Pumps India Private Limited, has stated that between May 43 to August 2000, this accused approached his company and sold stamps in the name of M/s.Sri Sai. Of them, M.O.s 541(1) to (4) are the stamps, which were recovered under Ex.P1427-mahazar. These stamps are counterfeit stamps in terms of the report marked as Ex.P.1015 as per the evidence of PW.228, Sri.R.K.Srivatsav of India Security Press, Nasik.
21. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses, to disbelieve their evidence. They have reiterated what they have stated in their examination-chief. Therefore, the Trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution, so far as accused No.7 is concerned.
d) ACCUSED NO.9 - NOOR AHAMED @ JAVID NOOR @ RAFI :
22(a). PW.308 -H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Police Inspector, Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru City, has stated that on 19.8.2000, this accused was found in the house situated at No.8, 3rd cross, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru 44 along with the accused Nos.8 & 10, while they were sorting out the counterfeit stamps of various denominations. In the said premises, the police have recovered counterfeit stamps worth Rs.8,63,57,927/-, cash of Rs.34,13,000/-
and other incriminating material used for printing, franking and embossing stamp marks which were marked as Ex.P59 mahazar. The material objects seized from the said premises were marked as M.Os.57 to 247 and the documents were marked as Exs.P62 to P85. The M.Os.57 to 141 were found to be counterfeit stamps, by the expert opinion in terms of the report marked as Ex.P1045 by PW.228-Sri.R.K.Srivatsav of ISP, Nasik.
(b). The evidence of PW.52-Umesh of M/s.L.T.Karle and Company, Bengaluru, indicates that this accused approached the said Company by showing the names of the clients, visiting card of M/s Sri Sai and Xerox copy of licence and offered to sell stamps. He being the Accountant of the said company, purchased the stamps during the year 1999-2000 on about 15 occasions. M.Os.351 to 354 45 were recovered under Ex.P.253-mahazar. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.308, the then Investigating Officer of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru.
The evidence of PW.228-Sri.R.K.Srivatsav in his report marked as Ex.P.1045, establishes that M.Os.351 and 354, the revenue stamps of Rs.50/- each, were forged ones. The evidence of PW.4 -V.Jagannath, the panch witness would also indicate that the mahazar was drawn in his presence.
23. The evidence of these witnesses has remained undisturbed. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, the Trial Court accepted the said evidence.
e) ACCUSED NO.10 - SRI.AMJAD KHAN @ NAUSHAD:
24(a). PW.308-H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Investigating Officer of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, has stated in his evidence that this accused was found in 46 the premises No.8, 3rd cross, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru, along with accused Nos.8 and 9 while sorting out the counterfeit stamps. In the said premises, counterfeit stamps worth more than Rs.8 crores and cash of Rs.34,13,000/- along with the instruments used for fake embossing and franking, were recovered under Ex.P59 mahazar. He then accosted accused No.10 along with accused No.9. The evidence relatable to accused No.10 with regard to seizure as well as the presence of the witnesses, is similar to that of accused No.9.
(b). PW.59-Siddananjamma, PW.160-Prabhakar and PW.128-Puttasiddaiah were the Directors of the Treasury. Their evidence would indicate that the instruments seized from the aforesaid house which were in possession of this accused, were not genuine i.e., with reference to M.Os.143 to 229.
(c). The evidence of PW.292 -Sri.Syed Asgar Imam, Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru and the evidence 47 of PW.308 -H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, Investigating Officer, shows that this accused claiming himself to be Khan, obtained a telephone connection to the premises No.408, I Floor, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. The said premises was being used for marketing counterfeit stamps in the name of Universal Marketing.
25. Considering these evidences and the fact that nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses, the Trial Court accepted the evidence of these witnesses as against this accused No.10.
II. CRL.A.NO.130 OF 2011:
ACCUSED No.11 - SRI.NAWAZ KHAN @ AFSAR @ IMRAN :
26(a). The evidence of PW.308 -H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Investigating Officer of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru indicates that he apprehended this accused along with accused No.15 -Shoaib and accused 48 No.16 -Liyakath Hussain at Mosque on Lalbagh Fort Road, Bengaluru on 28.08.2000. That this accused gave a voluntary disclosure statement as per Ex.P1437. The evidence of PW.12 -Abdul Wahib and PW.308 - H.J.Mariswamy Gowda would indicate that this accused in terms of his voluntary disclosure statement, took them and another panch to Engineer Syndicate Private Limited, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru. In the said firm, PW.204 -Raja Reddy who was working for the said firm, admitted to having purchased stamps from this accused, who had represented himself as an Executive of M/s.Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor. He had sold stamps in terms of the bills as per Exhibits P.227 to P.336. He has produced unused stamps marked as M.Os.333 to 336 which were recovered under Ex.P225 mahazar. The evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.204 -Rajareddy. The above stamps were subjected to expert opinion and in terms of report marked as Ex.P1045 in the evidence of 49 PW.228 -Sri.R.K.Srivatsav, these stamps are proved to be forged ones.
(b). PW.30 -Dr.Ramakrishna, Deputy Manager, Bio-
Science India Private Limited has stated that the company purchased foreign bill stamps through this accused, who stated to represent M/s.Sri Sai, under the bills marked as Exs.P386 to P430 and unused stamps marked as Exs.P311 to P322. The said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.12 and PW.308. The stamps were subjected to expert opinion and in terms of the report marked as Ex.P1045 in the evidence of PW.228, these foreign bill stamps are proved to be forged ones.
(c). PW.2 -K.Nanjundegowda, the then PSI of Upparpet Police Station, has stated that on 30.08.2008, this accused took him to New India Assurance Company Limited, J.C.Road, Bengaluru. At that office, PW.44 - Chandran, identified this accused and produced 215 unused insurance stamps marked as M.Os.22 to 27 which 50 were recovered under the mahazar Ex.P10. This evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.44 -Chandran. The stamps were subject to expert opinion and are proved as forged ones, in terms of the evidence of PW.228 - Sri.R.K.Srivatsav and the report marked as Ex.P1045.
(d). PW.26 -Sri.M.V.Jayaramaiah, the Assistant General Manager of HUDCO Regional Office, states that between February and August 2000, he purchased stamps from this accused, who represented himself to be an Executive of M/s.Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru and showed him a photo-stat copy of the stamp vending licence of one Sri.Eruchappan. M.Os.284 to 287 are the franked documents which were recovered by PW.308 -Sri.H.J. Mariswamy Gowda under Exhibit-P157 mahazar.
(e). The evidence of PW.59 -Smt.Siddananjamma, would indicate that the documents that were franked, were not genuine ones. That franking of the documents, is 51 always made by the sub-Registrar, Franking Cell, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, which is not the case so far as these documents are concerned.
(f). PW.27 -Sudhakar V Kamat, the then Assistant C Project of HUDCO, Regional Office, Bengaluru, has stated that HUDCO Regional Office, Bengaluru purchased franked documents from M/s.Sri Sai, marked as M.Os.283 to 286 which were recovered by PW.308 in support of the above evidence.
(g). PW.49 -Sri.R.Murali, Assistant M.D. of Cheslied Textiles Limited, has stated that this accused, represented himself to be an Executive of M/s.Sri Sai. He sold stamp papers and foreign bill stamps under cash bills marked as exhibits P.501 to P.515 and unused stamps produced as per M.Os.399 to 402 under Ex.P516 mahazar. The said evidence is supported by the evidence of PW.201-Vali Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police. That these foreign bill stamps were forged stamps in terms of the evidence of 52 PW.228 - Sri. R.K.Srivatsava vide his report marked as Ex.P.1045.
(h). The evidence of PW.62-Rajarrajeshwari, a stamp vendor, goes to show that this accused along with accused Nos.15 and 16, approached her to purchase stamps.
(i). PW.283-Amshu Malini, Accounts Officer, New India Assurance Company, Hudson Circle, Bengaluru, has stated that between 1999-2000, this accused introduced himself as an Executive of M/s Sri Sai Enterprises and Unique Services and supplied policy stamps worth more than Rs.2,50,000/-, on more than 50 occasions. The documents were marked as Ex.P.1204(1) to (20) and the statement is marked as Ex.P.1205. The said evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.312-Sri.S.K.Hegde, Investigating Officer of Stamp IT.
27. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve them. 53 The Trial Court accepted the evidence of the witnesses as against this, accused No.11.
III. CRL.A.NO.321 OF 2010:
ACCUSED NO.15 - SRI.SHOAIB.M @ MD.SHOAIB @ SYED SAMEER :
28(a). PW.308 -H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Investigating Officer of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru has stated in his evidence, that upon information received from accused No.1-Badruddin, this accused was apprehended along with accused Nos.11 & 16 at a mosque on Lalbagh fort road on 28.08.2000. He has stated that this accused took him to ICDS Center, situated at Manipal Center and recovered M.Os.281 and 282, stamps, under Ex.P.133-mahazar from one Sripathi. This accused, thereafter took him to TTK Prestige, at No.78, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru, wherein M.Os.287 to 380, stamps and Exs. P161 to P.178 documents, were recovered under Ex.P.158-mahazar. Further, this accused along with accused Nos.11 and 16 proceeded to property bearing No. 54 1799, 10th Cross, 9th Block, Jayanagar, wherein M.Os.251 and 252 and documents marked as Exs.P95 to P99 were recovered under Ex.P.93 mahazar. The accused thereafter took him and the panchas to premises No.666/49/3, 11th Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, wherein M.Os.213 to 215 and Ex.P.102 to Ex.P.107 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-100.
(b). PW.332 -Soundar Rajan, an employee of TTK Prestige, has stated that he identifies this accused as the person who sold the stamps claiming to be a representative of M/s Sri Sai on 11.11.1999.
PW.4-V.Jagannath and PW.12-Abdul Wahid, are the panch witness in support of the recovery of Stamps made at Jayanagar and Manipal Center, as well as in the office of TTK Prestige and Standard Chartered Bank. The stamps recovered were subjected to examination by Indian Security Press, Nasik. The evidence of PW.228- Sri.R.K.Srivatsva, in terms of his report marked as 55 Ex.P1045, would indicate that the stamps seized, were forged ones.
(e). PW.203-Venugopal, HR Manager, MM Exports, has stated that M.Os 495 and 496 are the stamps sold by this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s Sri Sai Enterprises under Exs.P971 to 974 bills, which were recovered under Ex.P.970-mahazar. The same is corroborated by the evidence of PW.1-Vali Basha, the Sub- Inspector of Police. The aforesaid evidence would indicate, that this accused, claiming to be an executive of M/s Sri Sai, was actively involved in printing and marketing of the counterfeit stamps.
29. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, the Trial Court was of the view, that based on these evidences, it is clear that this accused along with the other accused persons, was involved in 56 printing and marketing of fake stamps and embossing or franking documents on behalf of various firms. IV. CRL.A.NO.296 OF 2010:
ACCUSED NO.16 - LIYAKATH HUSSAIN @ AMEEN :
30(a). PW.308 - Sri.H.J.Mariswamy Gowda, the then Investigating Officer of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, has stated in his evidence that this accused was apprehended at Lalbagh Mosque Road on the information of accused No.1-Badruddin. Upon his information, a search was conducted at No.666/49, 9th Block, Jayanagar, wherein fake stamps were recovered under Ex.P983 mahazar.
(b). The evidence of PW.12 -Abdul Wahid and PW.4
-V.Jagannath who are the panch witnesses, would indicate that this accused took them to ICDS Manipal Centre, where fake stamps were recovered vide Ex.P134 mahazar. 57
On search at house No.1779, 4th cross, Jayanagar, stamps were recovered under Ex.P93 mahazar.
(c). The evidence of PW.55 -Shenoy, an Auditor and PW.12 -Abdul Wahid, would indicate that this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s.Sri Sai, sold share transfer stamps on 4.9.2000 which were recovered under Ex.P288 mahazar.
(d). PW.213, Smt.Lakshmi, of United Insurance Company, has stated that from November 1997 to December 1998, this accused claiming to be a representative of M/s.Sri Sai, Stamp Vendor, sold stamps on seven occasions.
(e). PW.53-Satyanathan, Assistant Manager of Punjab National Bank, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru, has stated that during the third week of April 2000, this accused claiming to be an executive of M/s.Sri Sai, 'A' Class Stamp Vendor, supplied stamps and provided 58 embossing papers with embossing seals, produced as M.Os.421 to 426, before PW.308, under Ex.P550 mahazar.
(f). PW.54 -Ramesh Babu, Accountant of Lokkur Stocks and Shares, has stated that this accused claiming to be an executive of M/s.Sri Sai, supplied stamps on about 15 to 20 occasions during the year 2000, in terms of the details vide Ex.P51. These stamps that were seized, were subjected to expert opinion, wherein by the evidence of PW.228 -Sri.R.K.Srivatsav, in terms of the report Ex.P1045, were found to be forged ones.
(g). The evidence of PW.128 -Puttasiddaiah, of the Government Press, shows that the embossing were not done in the Government Press.
31(a). The evidence of these witnesses were accepted by the Trial Court, in view of the fact that nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination. The evidence of each one of these witnesses stood corroborated not only with respect to the search and 59 seizure, but also with regard to the fact that the seized stamp papers, embossing material etc., were all forged ones by the expert opinion of PW.228 -Sri.R.K.Srivatsav in terms of the report marked as Ex.P1045. The Trial Court on considering the evidence so far as the aforementioned accused are concerned, was of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
(b). The trial Court was of the view that, based on the evidence, it could be clearly established that accused No.13 was involved in the manufacture, printing, marketing and sale of the counterfeit stamps etc. Various properties were taken by him on rent or lease in furtherance of the common intention. All the accused had conspired together to commit the offences.
(c). The evidence led in by the witnesses would clearly indicate the overt act of each one of the appellants. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross- 60 examination, in order to disbelieve them. Therefore, the evidence would clearly indicate the act of manufacture, printing, marketing and sale of counterfeit stamps.
32. The contention of the appellants is that, there is no recovery of any material involved in the printing or otherwise of the counterfeit stamps. Therefore, it is contended that, Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted.
33. On the other hand, the counsel for the prosecution disputes the same. He contends that, the charges levelled against the appellants are under Sections 225 to 260, 465, 467, 468, 471 to 475, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The charge is also one under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, which is criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the acts performed by the appellants, are directly attracted by the provisions of Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 61
34(a). Sri S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.387 of 2010, namely accused Nos. 2, 3, 7, 9 and 10, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 CRI. L. J. 4759 in the case of STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) Vs NITIN GUNWANT SHAN, WITH STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) -VS- OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA ALIAS BABLOO with reference to Para-16, which reads as follows:
"16. The prosecution relies upon the existence of criminal conspiracy, which resulted into the death of Lalit Suneja. This Court has time and again laid down the ingredients to be made out by the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The Court for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has been committed or not may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence. However, while doing so, it must be borne in mind that meeting of mind is essential; mere 62 knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient. Yet, the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence which establishes any prior meeting of mind of the accused. The prosecution merely proved that all the accused were present in Delhi on the date of occurrence, and that the alleged motor-bike and the car used in incident belonged to respondent No.2, Om Prakash Srivastava alias Babloo. The High Court rightly dismissed this argument, as the involvement of the said vehicles in commission of the crime were never proved; Neither any prior meeting of mind of the accused was proved, nor any action, individually or in concert, was proved against any of the accused. Needless to say that the entire foundation of the prosecution story was never established."
Based on the aforesaid judgment, it is contended that it is for the prosecution to prove the ingredients of criminal conspiracy. That evidence is essential to establish the same.
63
(b). There is no dispute that it is for the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy. That in the absence of proof of conspiracy, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed. However, the uncontroverted evidence would indicate that the appellants were involved in sale of counterfeit stamps. The case of the prosecution is that guidelines called as "twelve points" were issued to all the accused, which were required to be followed in the commission of acts of conspiracy. Each one had a distinct and separate role to play. It was not just a mere assumption, but a direction in the "special points" or "twelve points" to be followed by everyone. Infact, the "twelve points" and the "special points" also formed part of a specific charge against the accused. They had distinct and separate roles in the conspiracy which commenced from the manufacture of the stamps till the sale. They were aware that it was counterfeit stamps and they played an active role in the same. The prosecution having led-in 64 substantial evidence have therefore proved criminal conspiracy against the appellants.
35(a). Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, on the judgment reported in AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 3074 in the case of UMASHANKER -VS- STATE OF CHHATTISGARH with reference to Para-8, which reads as follows:
"8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank-notes are forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B of IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No 65 material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW.2, PW.4 and PW.7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to PW.4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 years old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial Court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currency-notes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges 66 (See:M.Mammutti v. State of Karnataka:AIR 1979 SC 1705).
It is contended that, the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes are counterfeit with reference to offences under Section 489(B) and 489(C). It is therefore contended that, the language therein is identical to the language used in Section 255 of the Indian Penal Code and hence there is no knowledge of the offence, so far as the appellants are concerned.
(b). The evidence on record would clearly indicate that, the stamp papers being procured by these appellants were from accused No.13 either by post, courier or by other means. There is no evidence to establish the fact that, these stamp papers were purchased from the Treasury namely, from the State. The law postulates that the stamp papers would have to be purchased only from the Treasury . There is no material to indicate that any of 67 the stamp papers were purchased from the Treasury.
Therefore, the accused were well aware of the fact that the stamps they are dealing with, were not original stamp papers but, were manufactured and were counterfeit.
36. The other aspect is the fact that only a licenced vendor or the seller is entitled in law to purchase the stamp papers from the Treasury and to sell it to prospective customers. The evidence on record does not indicate that each of the appellants possessed a licence either for the purchase or for sale of the stamp papers. Hence, we are of the view that the said judgment would not assist the appellants.
37(a). Sri Amar Korea, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.296 of 2010 namely accused No.16 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 SCC (CRI) 691 IN THE CASE OF STATE -VS- NALINI AND OTHERS with reference to Para-583, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 68 Court has narrated the broad principles of law of conspiracy as summarized therein. Specific reference is made to the principle as enunciated in Sub-Para Nos.7 and 8, which reads as follows:
"7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused 69 charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand "this distinction is important today when many prosecution seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders."
8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive 70 actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the prosecution has to produce evidence, not only to show that each of the accused had knowledge of the object of conspiracy, but also of the agreement. In Sub-Para No.8, it was stated that, it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy.
(b). Therefore, it is contended that, so far as these appellants are concerned, there is no material to indicate that they actually participated in the manufacture of counterfeit stamps and they had knowledge of the same.
(c). Even on applying the aforesaid guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has produced substantial evidence to show that each of the appellants 71 had absolute knowledge of conspiracy as well as to the agreement.
(d) The first charge itself is with reference to conspiracy which in part is extracted as follows:
"xxxx in pursuance of the said conspiracy, established contacts with others and communicated in detail "12 points" to be followed with regard to the opening of outlets, for the sale and circulation of fake stamp papers at Bangalore and other parts of the country."
Therefore, the same would indicate that guidelines were issued which were required to be followed with regard to the commission of acts of conspiracy. Further, the extended charge is extracted as follows:
"xxxxxx and that you implemented the scheme of design as per "plan of action" through "Special Points" and you accused Nos.12 and 28, and other accused procured instruments / materials for counterfeiting stamps / stamp papers and in pursuance of the said 72 conspiracy, you all the accused possessed the said instruments / materials and counterfeited stamps / stamp papers and sold such stamps papers with the dishonest intention, by inducing the prospective buyers of general stamps.
Substantial evidence has been led in by the prosecution which would clearly indicate the acts committed by each one of the accused. That they had knowledge of the counterfeit stamps papers/ stamps. That each had a distinct role to play, in the conspiracy.
(e). The appellants were in complete agreement about the conspiracy floated by accused No.13. Each one of the appellants had a very clear knowledge and understanding that the stamp papers being manufactured were counterfeit stamp papers and they played an active role in the manufacture and sale of such counterfeit stamp papers. Therefore, even applying the aforesaid guidelines 73 and principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same would not come to the aid of the appellants.
38(a). The learned Special Public Prosecutor in support of his case, relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993 SCC (Cri) 691, in the case of JOTI PARSHAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA, with reference to paragraph nos.4 and 5.
"4. The possession and sale of various counterfeit stamps by the appellant who was a stamp vendor is beyond dispute. Then the important question is whether he had knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps which he had in possession and was selling, were counterfeit of the stamps issued by the Government.
5. Under the Indian Penal Law, guilt in respect of almost all the offences is fastened either on the ground of "intention" or "knowledge" or "reason to believe". We are now concerned with the expressions "knowledge" and "reason to believe". "Knowledge" is an awareness on 74 the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. "Reason to believe" is another facet of the state of mind. "Reason to believe"
is not the same thing as "suspicion" to "doubt" and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise "knowledge" will be slightly on a higher plane than "reason to believe". A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have a reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same. Section 26 IPC explains the meaning of the words "reason to believe" thus:
"26. 'Reason to believe'.- A person is said to have 'reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise."' In substance what it means is that a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. Such circumstances need not 75 necessarily be capable of absolute conviction or inference; but it is sufficient if the circumstances are such creating a cause to believe by chain of probable reasoning leading to the conclusion or inference about the nature of the thing. These two requirements i.e. "knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case. In the context of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case namely that the appellant admittedly was a licenced stamp vendor and he was found in possession of counterfeit stamps, the explanation of the accused also becomes relevant and important in assessing and appreciating whether he had such knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeited. Admittedly he used to purchase stamps from the treasury and all such transactions are duly recorded in the official registers. There is absolutely no material whatsoever to show that the counterfeit stamps were in fact purchased by him from the treasury. A bare allegation by way of an explanation by the accused- appellant that he purchased all the stamps 76 including the counterfeit ones from the treasury appears on the face of it to be false, as he has neither produced registers maintained by him nor did he make even an effort to summon the treasury records. There is no material whatsoever even to probablise such a plea. In these circumstances the only inference that can be drawn is that he had "knowledge" and "reason to believe" that the stamps which he had in his possession and which he was selling or offering to sell, were counterfeit ones. These ingredients of the two provisions of law are fully established. Therefore the convictions are correct. The offence also is a serious one and the sentence awarded is not excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed."
Placing reliance on the said judgment, he contends that the explanation of the accused becomes relevant and important in assessing and appreciating whether he had such knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeited.
77
(b). In order to prove the absence of knowledge or innocence, the appellants would have to place material to show, that all the counterfeit stamps seized from their possession were those stamps that were purchased from the treasury, supported by the registers maintained and such other material to support of such a contention. The same is absent. There is absolutely no material whatsoever, to show that the counterfeit stamps were in fact purchased by them from the treasury. A bare statement by way of an explanation, by the accused - appellant, that he purchased all the stamps including the counterfeit ones from the treasury, in the face the evidence, is false. They have neither produced registers maintained by them, nor an effort to summon the treasury records. Therefore, it can be said that the appellants had clear knowledge of the fact that they were dealing with counterfeit stamps.
39(a). Reliance is placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor on the judgment of the Hon'ble 78 Supreme Court reported in (2009) 15 SCC 643, in the case of MIR NAGVI ASKARI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, with reference to paragraph Nos.60 to 63 and 66, which reads as follows:
"60. Criminal conspiracy, it must be noted in this regard, is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action; for so long as a crime is generated in the mind of the accused, the same does not become punishable. Thoughts even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take a concrete shape of an agreement to do or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means then even if nothing further is done, the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy.
61. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are:
(i) an agreement between two or more
persons;
(ii) an agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; (b) 79 an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
Condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of the fact which must be established by the prosecution viz. meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means.
62. The courts, however, while drawing an inference from the materials brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charges of the criminal conspiracy have been proved or not, must always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed and the accused persons took part are relevant. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that the propounders had expressly agreed to it or caused it to be done, and it may also proved by adduction of circumstantial evidence and/or by necessary 80 implication. (See Mohd.Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra.)
63. The following passage from Russell on Crimes (12th Edn., Vol.1) cited by Jagannatha Shetty J. in Kehar Singh v. State(Delhi Admn.) (at SCC p.731, para 271) bring out the legal position succinctly:
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreements is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough". (emphasis supplied) Further it was noted in Kehar Singh that to establish the offence of criminal conspiracy (i) it is not required that a single agreement should be entered into by all the conspirators at one time. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a 81 general conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished."
64. xxx
65. xxx
66. Since we have dealt with the law with respect to criminal conspiracy in detail in R.Venkatakrishnan v. CBI we need not deal with it hereat once again. We may however notice that this Court most recently in Mohd. Amin v. CBI after taking recourse to law governing the field noted thus:(SCC p.98 para
74) "74. The principles which can be deduced from the abovenoted judgments are that for proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co-participators in the main object of conspiracy. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at 82 different stages of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy."
(b). Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 1, in the case of SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. CENTRAL BUREARU OF INVESTIGATION, with reference to paragraph nos. 115 and 116, on the same principles as narrated in the previous judgment.
(c). The learned special public prosecutor contends that each one of the appellants had absolute knowledge with regard to the counterfeit stamps that they were dealing with. They were aware of the fact that the counterfeit stamps were being manufactured and that they were selling the said counterfeit stamps. They were given instructions as to the specific role that they had to play in the entire scheme of conspiracy. They were aware of all the stages of the conspiracy. Therefore, they had absolute knowledge with regard to the same. Merely to state that 83 they did not have knowledge, that they were innocent, cannot be accepted. The substantial evidence led in by the prosecution would show that there were huge seizures of the stamps etc., of different denomination and values from the each one of the appellants. The said material were sent to the ISP Nasik wherein a report vide Exhibit-P.1045 in the evidence of PW.228, would prove that they were all counterfeit stamps. The trial court has therefore rightly considered the material and hence the plea of the appellants cannot be accepted.
40. The primary case of the prosecution is that accused No.13 along with other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy for production, manufacture, sale etc. of counterfeit stamps and stamp papers. In furtherance of the same, the stamps papers being manufactured at Mumbai, were distributed to the rest of the country. The appellants would receive the same at Bengaluru and other parts of Karnataka. The buyers would be ascertained and the stamps would be sold to the said addresses. The State 84 Exchequer has suffered a loss of about Rs.25,000/- crores (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Crores) and upwards.
41(a). The appellants further contend that they were innocent and had no knowledge of the counterfeit stamps. They were under the belief that they were genuine stamp papers. That they were employed under accused No.13. That they were all his employees, since they applied for the job of marketing executives as advertised by accused No.13. That they were selected for the job and were drawing salaries. That they were only carrying out the instructions given to them. That they there was an employer-employee relationship between accused No.13 and the other accused. Therefore, they had no knowledge of the counterfeit stamps.
(b). We do not find any material that would establish the fact that these accused were employees of Accused No.13. The only reference is the evidence of PW- 5, Sri Arifulla Khan and PW-6, Sri Doulat Baig, with regard 85 to the attendance register. There is no other material to indicate that there was a paper publication and the appellants applied for the post, appointment letters were issued and they were paid regular salaries etc. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that all the appellants are conspirators has been established beyond all reasonable doubt.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 134 in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS, dealt with the question of conspiracy extensively in paragraph Nos. 173 to 186. We have considered the said paragraphs in detail. In effect, it was held that it was not necessary that each one of the conspirators should be aware of the entire act of conspiracy. It is sufficient if they are aware of the role that they had to play in the entire act of conspiracy. The same principles would stand applicable so far as the facts of this case is concerned. The charge against the appellants is one of criminal conspiracy 86 by following the dictum of accused No.13 to the "12 points" which would indicate the manner in which the conspiracy has to be taken forward. The sale, distribution, delivery, etc., were all being done with the knowledge, consent and participation of the appellants. With the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has established the role of each one of the appellants in the act of conspiracy.
43. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 SCC (Crl) 691, in the case of STATE VS. NALINI AND OTHERS, at para - 583, 10 broad principles governing the law of conspiracy, were laid down. Principle no.6, reads as follows:
"6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left."87
It was held that the crime is the gist of the offences and a common design and intention in furtherance of the commission of conspiracy.
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1988 SCC (Cri) 711, in case of KEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), at para - 273, has reproduced the observations made by COLERIDGE,J IN REGINA VS. MURPHY, which reads as under:
"I am bound to tell you, that although the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have this common design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspiracies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts 88 the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the conclusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask yourselves is, "Had they this common design, and did they pursue it by these commons means- the design being unlawful."
45. The aforesaid judgment would be a clear guideline in so far as the charges levelled against the appellants are concerned. Substantial material has been laid by the prosecution to show that the appellants were within the knowledge of the fact that the stamp papers, stamps, etc. being dealt with by them, are counterfeit. They had a definite role to play in the sale and distribution of these stamps. They were aware that those were counterfeit stamps. Therefore, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge that they were dealing with counterfeit stamps. The trial court having considered the material and 89 evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused. On considering the entire evidence as referable to the appellants, we find no good ground to interfere with the well-considered order of the trial court.
46. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW- 308 is comprehensive and exhaustive. He has clearly narrated as to when, how and where the respective accused were arrested. He has narrated the recoveries made from each one of the accused. He has specified the premises wherein the accused were arrested and the material were seized and Mahazar were drawn. The witnesses support the recoveries.
47. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the evidence of the Investigating Officer or the Mahazar Witnesses with regard to the recoveries. The recoveries were sent to the Security Press at Nasik. The Deputy General Manager, Security Printing Press, Nasik, PW-228, having examined the material sent to him, has submitted 90 his report in terms of Exhibit-P1045, which indicates that all the material sent to him were counterfeit. Therefore, the material seized from the accused have been proved to be counterfeit.
48. The contention of the accused that the counterfeit stamps were purchased from the Treasury is not supported by any evidence or material. There is no evidence to indicate that the stamps were purchased from the Treasury or were supported by evidence such as purchase orders, registers etc. Therefore, such a contention has only remained a contention and therefore cannot be accepted.
49. The counterfeit stamps were received from Bombay after being manufactured. The accused were aware that they were received from Bombay. They received stamps / stamp papers and fabricated embossing/franking stamp marks. The evidence of PW.128
- Puttasiddaiah, of the Government Press, indicates that 91 the franking of the documents can only be done at the Treasury, by the Officers of the State Government. That the embossing of the documents were not done in the Government Press. That none of the seals that were franked are done by the Officers of the government.
50. The accused were handed over booklets containing points to be followed in the process of conspiracy. Each one had a specific and distinct role to play. Each one had knowledge that they had to perform a particular part in the larger conspiracy. They were following instructions and committed acts of conspiracy in doing specific acts as narrated in the evidence of the Investigating Officer.
51. The contention of the accused that they are innocent employees of Accused No.13 is also without any merit. There are no appointment orders, salary slips or nothing of a like nature to indicate that they were employees under accused No.13. The said contention is 92 being advanced only to plead their innocence and lack of knowledge of the conspiracy. Except an argument, there is nothing on record to show that they were employed by accused No.13.
52. On the contrary, the entire evidence would indicate that all the accused were in conspiracy with accused No.13 to commit the said offences. The evidences led-in by the prosecution are strong and reliable. They have not been shaken in the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. Hence, we are of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
53(a). At this stage, Sri. Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused No.16, contends that since accused No.13, was the kingpin who actually indulged in the offence of manufacturing of the counterfeit stamps, the appellants cannot be awarded the same sentence as Accused No.13. Therefore, he pleads 93 that the sentence may be accordingly modified to a lesser extent than what has been awarded to accused No.13.
(b). The same is disputed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. He contends that the Trial Court having come to the conclusion that the appellants are the conspirators, they too are liable to be sentenced for the same offences, as much as the other accused.
(c). On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that the plea of the appellant cannot be accepted. Accused No.13/Abdul Kareem Telgi was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine as under:-
i) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 255 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
ii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 258 IPC R/W 94 Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
iii) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC in default of payment of above fine amount, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year.
iv) He shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 year."
However, so far as the appellants are concerned, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine as under:-
i) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the 95 offence punishable under Section 255 IPC R/W Section 120(B) of IPC;
ii) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 258 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC;
iii) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC R/w Section 120(B) of IPC;
iv) Each of the above accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 467 IPC R/W Section 120(B) IPC;
In default of the payment of fine amount each of the above accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months for each of the four offences mentioned in i) to
iv) as above.
96
(e). Therefore, the plea of the appellant has received due and appropriate consideration by the trial court itself. The sentence awarded to these appellants are far less, than the sentence awarded to accused No.13. Hence, we find no good ground to further reduce the sentence.
54. The trial court has considered the evidence pertaining to each one of the accused in detail. The reasons assigned by the trial court are just and proper. The evidence led in by the prosecution is strong, reliable and unshaken. Inspite of examining the judgment in detail with reference to the evidence and the records, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the trial court. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the well considered order of the trial court.
97
55. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeals being devoid of merit, are dismissed. The appellants to serve the remaining period of sentence.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE
JJ/BSS/ST