Delhi District Court
State vs . Manoj Kumar Fir 897/14 (56316/2016) on 31 July, 2017
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANISH YADUVANSHI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 05: WEST : DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
Case No. 56316/16
FIR No. 897/14
PS Ranhola
U/s 489B/489C/120B IPC
STATE
VERSUS
(1)MANOJ KUMAR
S/O SH.JAI PRAKASH
R/O H.NO. 92, RANAJI ENCLAVE,
NAJAFGARH, DELHI.
(2) PREM CHAND RANA
S/O SH.RAGHUBIR SINGH
R/O H.NO. 109, RANAJI ENCLAVE,
NAJAFGARH, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 04.03.2015
Date of Reserving Judgment : 20.07.2017
Result: Page 1 of 30
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016)
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2017
JUDGMENT
1.The present accused persons namely Manoj Kumar and Prem Chand Rana have been facing trial for the offences punishable U/s 120B & 489C IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. Accused Prem Chand was additionally Charged for the offence U/s 489D, whereas accused Manoj Kumar was additionally charged for the offence U/s 420 & 489B IPC.
2.Facts leading to the Prosecution's case are as under :
2.1 On 16.11.2014, on receipt of DD no. 26A, HC Parmender Kumar alongwith Ct.Rajesh Kumar reached at H.No. A39, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, where complainant Mohd.Yamin met them. He got his statement recorded to the effect that he runs his retail shop in front of his house. While he was operating his shop on 16.11.2014, at about 04:30 PM, one person visited his shop and took out two govt. currency notes of Rs.50/ denomination each. While handing over one of those currency Notes to the complainant, the said Result: Page 2 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) customer demanded "Ghari Detergent Cake" for Rs.10/.
Complainant further stated that on seeing the currency Note, he doubted its genuineness, therefore, requested the customer to give another note to him. The customer had thereafter, given the other currency Note of Rs.50/ denomination. At this juncture, complainant noticed that both the currency notes of Rs.50/ denomination offered by the customer were bearing same serial numbers i.e. 8AVJ67428. 2.2 As per the complainant, he had made Call on phone number 100 after keeping the customer engaged in conversation while using the Mobile phone of said customer whose name was later discovered as Manoj Kumar. Complainant had handedover both the currency notes of Rs.50/ to HC Parminder, which he had later seized.
2.3 HC Parminder sent Ct.Rajesh to PS for getting the FIR registered U/s 489B/489C IPC. FIR no 897/14 PS Ranhola U/s 489B/489C IPC was registered. After registration of the FIR, the investigation of the present case was handedover to SI Brahm Prakash and investigation was carried out. During investigation, IO seized the two currency Notes of Rs.50/ denomination after sealing Result: Page 3 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) the same with the seal of PKY. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant. Accused Manoj Kumar was arrested. From his personal search, 10 Currency Notes of Rs.50/ denomination, which were having the same serial numbers as 8AVJ67428, were recovered. The said 10 currency Notes were seized by the IO after sealing the same with the seal of BP.
2.4. Thereafter, disclosure statement of accused Manoj Kumar was recorded and in pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Manoj Kumar had led the police party to Ranaji Enclave, Najafgarh, Delhi, from where accused Prem Chand Rana was arrested at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar. Thereafter, accused Prem Chand Rana got recovered one Printer HP Deskjet 1050 Sl.No. CN33U39MQF alongwith Power Cord, two packets of white paper, out of which one was closed and one was opened, on which "Royal Executive 85 gms A4/100 Sheets was written, one scale of stainless steel, one yellow coloured Cutter and one Glitter Pen. He also got recovered 15 Currency Notes of Rs.50/ denomination each having same Srl.No. i.e. 8AVJ67428 and one currency Note of Rs.100/ denomination having Srl.No.JAT585253. IO had seized both Result: Page 4 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) currency notes of Rs.50/ and Rs.100/ denomination alongwith abovesaid recovered articles, after sealing them in separate pullandas with the seal of BP.
2.5 Information regarding recovery of fake currency notes was sent to the RBI, New Delhi. Exhibits were sent to the FSL, Rohini. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet U/s 489B/489C/120B IPC against both the accused persons was filed before the Court.
3.Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge U/s 120B IPC against both the accused persons; Charge U/s 489C r/w Section 120B IPC, 489D IPC was framed against the accused Prem Chand Rana and Charge U/s 489B IPC r/w Section 120B IPC, 420 IPC and 489C IPC r/w Section 120B IPC against accused Manoj Kumar on 28.05.2015, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
4.To prove its case, the prosecution in total has examined 07 witnesses i.e. PW1 Mohd.Yamin, PW2 HC Ghanshyam, PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar, PW4 Sh.Avdesh Kumar, PW5 HC Bijender, Result: Page 5 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) PW6 ASI Parminder Kumar and PW7 SI Brahm Prakash.
5.PW1 Mohd.Yamin/complainant has deposed that on 16.11.2014 at about 04:30 PM, he was present at his shop. Accused Manoj came at his shop and demanded one detergent Soap "Ghari Brand" of Rs.10/ and took out a note of Rs.50/ from his pocket and gave the same to him. He sensed that the said note was not clean (गगदद सद) and thereafter accused gave him another note of Rs.50/. He saw that numbers of note were same on both the notes. He sensed that there was something wrong (गडबड लगद). He has further deposed that thereafter, he informed the police at 100 number after taking the Mobile phone of accused Manoj Kumar. He kept him busy in talks and some public persons also gathered there. He informed the police that one person was apprehended and he was having fake currency note. Police reached the spot. Accused tried to flee from the spot but he was apprehended by the public persons.
5.1. The complainant handedover two notes of Rs.50/ denomination to the police, which was given to him by the accused.
This witness has identified his signatures at points A on his statement Ex.PW1/A as well as on the Seizure Memo of Notes Ex.PW1/B. Result: Page 6 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) 5.2. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State as he has not deposed the complete facts. In the crossexamination done by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State, this witness has admitted the fact that the search of accused Manoj Kumar was conducted by the police and 10 notes of Rs.50/ denomination were recovered from the right side pocket of his Pant and those notes were having same number. He has also admitted that the smell of Petrol like substance was emanating from the notes. This witness has identified his signatures at point A on the Seizure Memo of abovesaid 10 currency notes i.e.Ex.PW1/C. This witness has identified the 12 notes of Rs.50/ denomination as Collectively Ex.P.1.
6.PW2 HC Ghanshyam has proved the true copy of DD no.26, as Ex.PW2/A, which was regarding the call received through wireless operator to the effect that one man was using the fake currency notes at Shiv Vihar near Shiv Mandir. He has also proved the Computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW2/C and his endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of the case which is encircled red as Ex.PW2/B. Result: Page 7 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016)
7.PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on 16.11.2014, on receiving the DD no.26A, he alongwith HC Parminder reached at H.No. A39, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, where complainant met them. He had apprehended one person namely Manoj Kumar and produced two fake currency notes of Rs.50/ denomination. He has further deposed that these notes were sealed with the seal of PKY and thereafter, HC Parminder recorded rukka and gave it to him for getting the FIR registered. He got the case registered and returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handedover it to SI Brahm Prakash.
7.1. He has further deposed that personal search of accused Manoj Kumar was conducted and 10 notes of Rs.50/ denomination each were recovered from the pocket of his Pant. Thereafter, accused Manoj Kumar was arrested. This witness has identified his signatures at point A on the Arrest Memo Ex.PW3/A of accused Manoj Kumar and at point B on the Seizure Memo of two notes Ex.PW 1/B. His disclosure statement was recorded.
7.2. This witness has further deposed that in pursuance to disclosure statement of accused Manoj Kumar, he led the police party Result: Page 8 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) to the house of accused Prem Chand Rana and at his instance, accused Prem Chand Rana was apprehended. He has further deposed that 10 notes of Rs.50/ denomination having same number on each notes and one note of Rs.100/ denomination were recovered from the pocket of his pant.
7.3. This witness was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State wherein he has admitted that his statement was recorded by IO/SI Brahm Prakash. He has also admitted that name of the complainant was Yamin and he had produced the accused Manoj Kumar. He has also admitted in the crossexamination done by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that two notes of Rs.50/ denomination which were produced by the complainant were having same serial numbers and the same was noted by the IO in the Seizure Memo. He had also admitted that after recording statement of Mohd.Yamin by HC Parminder Kumar, rukka was prepared and then handedover to him for getting the FIR registration. He has also admitted that 10 notes of Rs.50/ denomination which were having same numbers on each note were kept in transparent plastic Container and it was sealed with the seal of BP and was taken into possession Result: Page 9 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) vide Seizure Memo. He has also admitted that in the personal search of accused Manoj Kumar, Rs.670/ were recovered which were taken into possession vide Personal search Memo.
7.4. He has also admitted in the crossexamination done by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that from the house of accused Prem Chand Rana, 15 notes of Rs.50/ denomination each,which were having same numbers, One Printer without wire, Scale, Cutter, Glitter Pen were also recovered. He has also admitted that note of Rs.100/ denomination, which was recovered from the house of accused Prem Chand Rana was fake currency note. In the crossexamination done by Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State, this witness has also proved the copy of RC no. 8/21/15 as Mark PW3/A and acknowledgement as Mark PW3/B. This witness has identified the 27 Notes of Rs.50/ denomination and one note of Rs.100/ denomination as collectively Ex.P.1, which were recovered from the accused persons, One Printer as Ex.P.2, One Cutter, One Pen, One Scale and two Packets of white sheets (one is closed and another is opened) as collectively Ex.P.3.
8. PW4 Sh.Avdesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, has Result: Page 10 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) deposed that on 11.02.2015, the documents with Memo No.227/SHO/Ranhola/New Delhi dated 20.01.2015 were received and examined by him. He has further deposed that there were two exhibits i.e.Ex.A contained 27 Indian Currency Notes of Rs.50/ denomination which were Marked by him as Q.1 to Q.27 and Ex.B contained one currency note of Rs.100/denomination which was marked as Q.28. He has further deposed that all the currency notes of Rs.50/ were of same serial number. As per the Opinion of this witness, the currency notes marked Q.1 to Q.27 were found of counterfeit nature and the currency note marked Q.28 was also found of counterfeit nature. This witness has proved his report as Ex.PW 4/A and identified his signatures at point A.
9. PW5 HC Bijender MHC(M) has proved the entry at Srl.No. 439/1119 in register no.19 as Ex.PW5/A regarding deposition of pullandas by SI Brahm Prakash on 16.11.2014 i.e.two sealed plastic boxes stated to be containing counterfeit Indian Currency Notes of Rs.50/ denomination, One Printer being wrapped in a cloth and tied with Power Cord, one another pullanda stated to be containing white Paper, Scale Cutter and Glitter Pen and one another sealed plastic Result: Page 11 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) box stated to be containing 15 notes of Rs.50/ denomination and one note of Rs.100/ denomination.
9.1. This witness has further deposed that on 20.01.2015, one plastic box containing two notes of Rs.50/ denomination, one plastic box containing 10 notes of Rs.50/ denomination, one plastic box containing 15 notes of Rs.50/ denomination and one note of Rs.100/denomination were handedover to Ct.Rajesh Kumar vide RC no. 8/21/15 to be deposited at FSL, Rohni, Delhi and he had made the entry in register no.19, which is exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. This witness has also proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW5/B.
10. PW6 ASI Parminder Kumar has deposed that on receiving DD no.26A, Ex.PW2/A, he alongwith Ct.Rajesh went to the informed place where Mohd.Yamin met them and handedover two currency notes of Rs.50/ denomination, having same serial number. He had also produced accused Manoj Kumar stating that he had given him those currency notes after purchasing detergent Cake for Rs.10/. This witness has recorded the statement of complainant which is proved as Ex.PW1/A. He has also proved the Seizure memo of both the abovesaid currency notes as Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared Result: Page 12 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) Tehrir Ex.PW6/A and sent Ct.Rajesh for getting the FIR registration which is proved as Ex.PW2/C. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was handedover to SI Brahm Prakash and he handedover the Seizure memo of fake currency notes alongwith copy of Tehrir to SI Brahm Prakash. This witness has proved the Arrest Memo and Personal search memo of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. He has further stated that before arresting the accused, SI Brahm Prakash had conducted cursory search of accused Manoj Kumar and he was found having in his possession 10 G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination each. This witness has also proved the Seizure memo of abovesaid 10 G.C.Notes as Ex.PW1/C. He has also proved the Disclosure statement of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex.PW6/C and in pursuance to his disclosure statement, accused Manoj Kumar had led the police party to Ranaji Enclave, where at the instance of accused Manoj Kumar, accused Prem Chand Rana was apprehended. Thereafter, accused Prem Chand Rana got recovered one Printer, one Cutter, one Glitter Pen, one Steel Ruler and two bundles of blank white sheets. He has further deposed that from the drawer of the table, on which the printer was lying, accused Result: Page 13 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) Prem Chand Rana got recovered 15 G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination, having same Srl.Number and one G.C.Note of Rs.100/ denomination. This witness has proved the Seizure Memo of white papers, Cutter, Glitter Pen and the steel Ruler as Ex.PW 6/D, Seizure Memo of Printer cum Scanner alongwith its Power Cord as Ex.PW6/E, Seizure Memo of 15 G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination, got recovered by the accused Prem Chand Rana from the drawer of the table as Ex.PW6/F. This witness has also proved the Arrest Memo and Personal Search Memo of accused Prem Chand Rana as Ex.PW6/G and Ex.PW6/H respectively. He has further deposed that during the personal search of accused Prem Chand Rana, Rs.700/ in the form of 7 G.C.Notes of Rs.100/ denomination each were recovered. This witness has identified the Container Ex.P.1 in which he had kept the Currency notes recovered from accused Manoj Kumar. He has also identified the Container Ex.P.2, in which the IO/SI Brahm Prakash had kept the G.C.Notes recovered during the search of accused Manoj Kumar, third Container Ex.P.3 containing 28 currency notes as exhibited Ex.P.1 (Colly.), One Printer Ex.PX1 and two packets of white sheets, one Cutter, one Result: Page 14 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) Pen and one Ruler as Ex.PX2.
11. PW7 SI Brahm Prakash is IO of this case. He has deposed about the investigation conducted by him in this case. He has proved the Seizure Memo of two G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination as Ex.PW1/B, Seizure Memo of 10 G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination as Ex.PW1/C, Arrest Memo and Personal Search Memo of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW6/B, Disclosure Statement of accused Manoj Kumar as Ex.PW6/C, Seizure Memo of 16 G.C.Notes recovered from accused Prem Chand Rana as Ex.PW6/F, Seizure Memo of Printer alongwith its Cord as Ex.PW6/E, Seizure Memo of White Papers, Glitter Pen, Scale and Cutter produced by accused Prem Chand Rana as Ex.PW6/D. 11.1. He has also proved the Arrest Memo, Personal Search Memo and Disclosure statement of accused Prem Chand Rana as Ex.PW6/G, Ex.PW6/H and Ex.PW7/A respectively. He has also proved the copy of RC as Ex.PW5/B, vide which he had sent all the counterfeit currency notes to FSL, Rohini and the report of FSL as Ex. PW4/A. 11.2.This witness has also identified the case property i.e. 27 Result: Page 15 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination and one G.C.Note of Rs.100/ denomination as Ex.P.1, Plastic Container Mark P.1 in which two G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination recovered from accused Manoj Kumar and another Plastic Container Mark P.2 in which he had kept the 10 G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ denomination recovered from accused Manoj Kumar. He has also identified the Printer as Ex.PX1 and two packets of white Paper sheets, One Cutter, One Pen, One scale as Ex.PX2 (Colly.).
12.Thereafter, statements of both the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, wherein accused Prem Chand Rana has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas accused Manoj Kumar has deposed and admitted that he went to the shop of Mohd.Yamin on 16.11.2014 for purchasing some articles/goods. He has further deposed that at that time, wife of Mohd.Yamin was present at the shop. There, some hot arguments took place between him and the wife of Mohd.Yamin during purchasing of goods/articles. The wife of Mohd.Yamin called her husband and subsequently, he was implicated falsely in the present case. Police came at the shop and took him to PS and implicated him Result: Page 16 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) falsely in the present case. He is innocent. He has not committed any offence. However, both the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
13.I have heard Sh.R.P.Singh, ld. Counsel for accused Manoj Kumar, Ms.Poorti Aggarwal, ld. Counsel for accused Prem Chand Rana and Sh.B.B.Bhasin, Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State and have perused the record carefully.
SUBMISSIONS :
14.Mr.Bhasin, Ld.Prosecutor urges that the prosecution has, without any reasonable doubt, proven the case against both the accused persons on all counts. He further urges that police witnesses have given cogent, satisfactory and acceptable reasons as to why independent members of the public were not involved in the investigation, including the recovery of the incriminating articles and also arrest of the accused persons.
15. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused Manoj Kumar that he is innocent and he is implicated in this case merely because he had some arguments between him and the wife of PW1/Complainant Mohd.Yamin. It is urged that for this reason, despite the factum of availability of independent members of public Result: Page 17 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) (as per PW6), none of them is shown to be present in the investigation pertaining to the recovery of the currency notes from the person of this accused as well as his arrest.
16. On behalf of accused Prem Chand Rana, it is argued that the mode and manner of the recovery of the fake currency notes and the paraphernalia for printing the same is highly doubtful. It is submitted that as per the prosecution, it was coaccused Manoj who had led the police party to his house. As per the IO, this accused was found present outside of his house which is admittedly in a populated locality. It is submitted that the IO/PW7 SI Brahm Prakash failed to join any independent members of public from outside the house of this accused despite their availability. It is further contended that the recovery is also duly doubtful as the IO made no attempt to call any independent members of the locality despite the fact that the search of the house of accused was being conducted by the raiding police party and recoveries were shown to be effected.
17. It is further contended that the Printer allegedly recovered from this accused was never sent for obtaining opinion of the FSL expert. It is submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the said Printer could have printed the currency notes allegedly recovered from the Result: Page 18 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) house of the accused. It is further submitted that the police official who reported to DD no.26A, Ex.PW2/A, namely Ct.Rajesh Kumar has not supported full facts and was to be crossexamined by the Ld.Prosecutor as he was resiling from his previous statement. It is contended that his testimony is therefore doubtful. It is also sought to be demonstrated that the testimony of the police witnesses would reveal that they are not speaking of total 28 currency notes that was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is also contended that none of the witnesses were able to prove as to which particular currency note was recovered from which particular accused. It is therefore urged that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. FINDINGS :
18. Accused Manoj and Prem Chand Rana are both charged for committing Offence Punishable U/s 120B IPC.
19. Accused Manoj is further Charged of committing offence Punishable U/s 489B IPC r/w Section 120B as he used two Currency Notes of Rs.50/ as genuine knowing that the same were Counterfeit.
20. He is further charged of committing offence Punishable U/s Result: Page 19 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) 420 IPC as he caused wrongful loss to the complainant by tendering Counterfeit G.C.Notes and inducing the complainant to deliver one "Ghadi Detergent Soap" worth Rs.10/.
21. He is further charged for committing offence Punishable U/s 489C IPC r/w Section 120B IPC as he was found in possession of 10 Counterfeit Indian G.C.Notes knowingly fully well that they are Counterfeit and not genuine.
22. On the other hand, accused Prem Chand Rana is charged of committing offence Punishable U/s 489C r/w Section 120B IPC as found in possession of 15 Counterfeit Indian G.C.Notes of Rs.50/ each and one Counterfeit Indian G.C.Note of Rs.100/ knowingly that the same were forged, Counterfeit and intending to use them as genuine.
23. He is also charged of committing offence Punishable U/s 489D as found in possession of instruments for Printing/Counterfeiting Currency Notes.
24. As per the prosecution, both the accused persons had prior concert amongst them to the effect that accused Prem Chand Rana shall be printing forged/Counterfeit Currency Notes at his residence Result: Page 20 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) with the help of the printing material i.e. Printer Ex.P.2, one Cutter, One Pen, one Scale and two boxes of white Sheets Ex.P.3 (Colly.) and that the said accused with the help of the said Printing material had produced 28 Counterfeit Notes collectively exhibited as Ex.P.1 which are proven to be Counterfeit in the statement of the FSL Expert Ex.PW4/A. The coaccused was to pass them of as genuine in open market.
25. The defence is that the recoveries are highly doubtful and that the prosecution has remained unable to prove as to which counterfeit currency note was recovered from which of the accused persons.
26. After having considered the facts and circumstances before me in the light of evidence that has been adduced, I find that PW2 HC Ghansham who had responded to the DD Ex.PW2/A alongwith HC Parminder Kumar (Now ASI)/PW6 was a witness only to two of the documents which are the Arrest Memo of accused Manoj Kumar Ex.PW3/A and to the Seizure of the two Counterfeit currency notes having same Srl.No.8SVJ67428 of Rs.50/ each which were produced by PW1 Mohd.Yamin on the spot. Same is Ex.PW1/B.
27. Evidence shows that he is the official who carried Tehrir Ex.
Result: Page 21 of 30State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) PW6/A to the PS as handedover to him by PW6 soon after seizure of the two Counterfeit notes vide Ex.PW1/B. PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar claims to have left complainant's shop at 06:30 PM. This time of return with FIR is not in his testimony. He proceeded to house of Prem Chand Rana and reached there at 09:30 PM. PW6 ASI Parminder Kumar sent him to PS soon after preparing Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B and in the mean time, he carried further investigation till the arrival of the IO/PW7 SI Brahm Prakash alongwith PW3. As per him, PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar returned at 07:30 PM. Record shows that by that time, the 10 other Counterfeit currency notes were yet to be recovered. PW6 further states that before conducting personal search of accused Manoj, a cursory search was made upon which the 10 other currency notes of Rs.50/each having the same Srl.Nos as above was recovered from his person. PW3 Ct.RajeshKumar states that the said notes were recovered in personal search from the pocket of Pant worn by accused Manoj Kumar. He has signed on the said Seizure Memo.
PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar claims that members of public were not present at the spot i.e. outside the shop of the complainant, however, Result: Page 22 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) PW6 ASI Parminder Kumar has repeatedly stated about said presence of the local residents/public persons who refused to join the investigation. No legal action was taken against them. Their phone numbers were not even noted.
He further claimed that none had seized the Cell Phone of the accused Manoj Kumar from which the alleged call to PCR was purportedly made by the complainant. This is an interesting point as Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/B of accused Manoj reveals that only a cash sum of Rs.670/ was recovered from him. There is no mention about the Cell Phone which is used by the complainant to call the police. Mobile Number 9871106650 is mentioned in DD no.26A Ex.PW2/A. The Prosecution has not proved as to whose Mobile number it is.
28. Coming back to public witnesses, the IO/PW7 SI Brahm Prakash has also submitted that members of public had gathered at the spot at 07:30 PM when he reached the spot. He claims that none was willing to join investigation and that he did not serve any notice to such persons.
Result: Page 23 of 30State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016)
29. The above fact coupled with the testimony of PW3 Ct.Rajesh Kumar that no public persons were present outside the shop of the complainant and the testimony of PW6 and PW7 that despite their availability, none had been joined as they refused, is creating doubt in the version of the prosecution as the prosecution subsequently fails to demonstrate as to which two currency notes from the Collective Ex.P.1 were handedover by PW1, which 10 currency notes were recovered from the pocket of accused Manoj, which 15 currency notes were recovered from the accused Prem Chand and which single Rs.100 note was recovered from whom?
30. The fake currency note of Rs.100/ is the only note that could have been practically identified as the rest fake notes were in the denomination of Rs.50/ each and all have same serial numbers.
31. Having regard to these circumstances, coupled with the fact that PW1's testimony does not logically explains as to why the accused would still not try to run away when PW1 Mohd.Yamin had made a call to PCR, and that too, by using the Mobile Phone of the accused creates even more doubts. Moreover, PW1 Mohd.Yamin is improving drastically upon his testimony as he states in cross Result: Page 24 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) examination that persons from the locality gathered at the spot and apprehended the accused when he tried to flee. He could not give such names in the court statement nor he stated so to the police. His testimony is to the effect that he had somehow attempted to keep the accused busy at his shop after informing the police. But, he does not state as to from where he made the telephone call. The prosecution ought to have clarified that the phone call was not made before the accused. As per PW1, he used the Cell phone of the accused as his own phone was lying at his house.
32. This kind of testimony does not instills confidence.
33. When the recovery from accused Manoj becomes doubtful, the question of 'deceiving' the complainant does not arise.
34. Moreover, no wrongful loss is seen to have been caused to the complainant as alleged as his testimony does not establish that he had parted with the possession of the article i.e.Ghari detergent Soap after such 'inducement'.
35. So far as the accused Prem Chand Rana is concerned, PW1's testimony does not impacts him.
36. PW3 deposed as if all recoveries i.e.Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were made in his presence. He states in his Chief Examination and that too Result: Page 25 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) wrongly, that ten notes of Rs.50/ each with same serial numbers were recovered from the pocket of pant of this accused besides the note of Rs.100/. He claims that these notes were sealed in his presence. He was crossexamined by the Ld.Prosecutor in which he corrects himself submitting that 15 notes of Rs.50/ each were recovered. The number of notes recovered and their description by PW3 creates doubt. Moreover, he was also shown the entire case property including Printing Paraphernalia which he identifies as the articles recovered from the house of the accused. In his cross examination, he again states that the said 15 G.C.Notes were recovered from the 'left side pocket of Pant' of the accused Prem Chand Rana.
37. This could have been ignored but then the witness is seen to beunable to even recollect the house number or even its directions. Further more, he could not tell the number of rooms in the said house and the location of the room from where the Printing material was recovered. To totally doom his testimony, he claims that he remained outside the house with accused Manoj and therefore, he could not tell about the proceedings conducted inside the house of accused Prem Chand Rana. He further reiterated in his crossexamination by Result: Page 26 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) accused Prem Chand Rana that he remained present outside the house as he was having custody of accused Manoj Kumar. His testimony is therefore totally unreliable so far as the accused Prem Chand Rana is concerned.
38. I have already pointed out that none of the witness has been able to prove as to which fake currency notes was recovered from which of the accused. As per the initial case of the prosecution as well as the testimonies of PW6 and PW7, the currency notes were recovered from the drawer in the house of the accused Prem Chand Rana. As per PW3, the same were recovered from the pocket of his trouser.
39. This is a serious doubt that has crept up in the version of the prosecution and coupled with absence of any independent members of public and despite the fact that as per PW6, the son of accused Prem Chand Rana had reached at the house but none joined in any investigation, prompts this court to look for further corroboration to the testimony of PW6 and PW7. Same is absent. PW6 has categorically stated that public witnesses were not made to sign the Seizure Memos. No legal action was taken against them. The description that PW6 provides qua interior constructions in the Result: Page 27 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) house of Prem Chand Rana is not provided in the Site Plan Ex.PW 6/DA. The rooms have not been marked. SI Brahm Prakash/PW7 is the only witness who is stating that the accused Prem Chand Rana was outside his house when he was apprehended. None of the other witnesses had said so. He is the only witness who states that the accused was asked to demonstrate as to how he used to print fake notes and that the accused had so demonstrated without printing any fresh note. His testimony is without any corroboration.
40. The above doubts could have been cleared if at all there was an independent witness to the event of the alleged recoveries from both the accused persons. Both witnesses have been extensively cross examined on this aspect but their answers with respect to the said questions are not satisfactory. As per the IO, they reached the house of Prem Chand Rana at 09:15 PM and stayed there till about 09:45 PM to 10:00 PM. He remained at the house of Prem Chand Rana for about 3045 minutes, but did not request any local residents of adjoining houses of the coaccused to join the investigation.
41. Lastly, the prosecution does not establish that the Printer which was recovered could have actually printed the recovered fake Result: Page 28 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) currency notes.
42. What the prosecution therefore proves beyond reasonable doubt is that the Notes ExP.1 all are fake/counterfeit but it does not proves beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that accused Manoj was the person who tried to use two such counterfeit notes and intended to use 10 such other notes. It also does not proves that the remaining currency notes were printed by the accused Prem Chand Rana. The recovery remains doubtful. Separate identification of the fake currency notes was never done and this fact also entitles benefit of doubt to accused persons.
43. I see no reason as to why the benefit of overwhelming number of doubts that have been pointed out in the above Judgment is not to be accorded to both the accused persons.
44. In view of above discussion, both the accused persons namely Manoj Kumar and Prem Chand Rana are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 120B and 489C IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. Accused Prem Chand Rana is also acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 489D IPC. Accused Manoj Kumar is also acquitted for the offence Punishable U/s 420 IPC and 489B Result: Page 29 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) IPC.
Their bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled and sureties are discharged. Original documents, if any be released to its rightful owner against receipt after cancellation of endorsement, if any. Further it is ordered that the case property of this case, if any, be disposed of/destroyed after expiry of period of filing appeal, if any.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (MANISH YADUVANSHI) COURT ON: 31.07.2017 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi. Result: Page 30 of 30 State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR 897/14 (56316/2016) Result: Page 31 of 30