Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Karnataka Now C.B.I. vs Abdul Kareem Telgi on 3 May, 2017
Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Rohinton Fali Nariman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 87/2011
STATE OF KARNATAKA NOW C.B.I. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABDUL KAREEM TELGI Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This is an appeal filed by the appellant – State of Karnataka now Central Bureau of Investigation, against the impugned Judgment of the High Court whereby the said Court has set aside the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court below against Accused No.5 – sole respondent herein.
We have heard Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant – Central Bureau of Investigation in the Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2011 at length.
It is also a fact that Ms. Monisha Bhandari, learned Amicus Curaie who was appointed in this matter to appear on behalf of the respondent – accused (Abdul Kareem Telgi) could not make herself present due to her personal difficulty.
Learned Senior counsel contended before us that it was not appropriate on the part of the High Court to set aside the well-reasoned Judgment of the Trial Court qua accused No.5 – sole respondent herein. She further stated that the High Court ought to have relied upon the oral evidence of employees of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises and M/s. Unique Services that the Accused No.5 was Signature Not Verified their Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2017.05.09 boss and its finding with regard to non-availability of 16:47:43 IST Reason:
documentary evidence is totally misplaced. According to her, the prosecution has proved that accused Nos.1 to 5 were in criminal -2- conspiracy with each other and in pursuance of it, they have committed the offence and the evidence has been brought on record to show that Accused No.5 conspired with Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for carrying out sale of fake stamps/stamp papers at Bangalore. She has emphatically stated before us that there were several messages sent by Pager, none of which have been explained by Accused No.5.
We have perused all the facts put forth by the learned Senior counsel and also perused the Judgments delivered by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court in the matter.
The question which arose in this matter is whether the High Court, without considering the facts of the matter in question, while dealing with accused No.5 with regard to guilt of offence based on the finding that Accused No.5 as the Boss of M/s. Cauvery Enteprises and M/s. Unique Services was also one of the conspirators accused. We have also taken through the evidence which has been led before the Trial Court. After going through the evidence as has been placed before us and looking to the oral evidence of PWs 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20, it can be stated that there was connection between accused No.5 and these two organizations which has already been established. In the evidence of PWs 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20, they have specifically stated that Accused No.5 was their boss and was carrying out the business as has been directed by him. Therefore, it appears that the High Court has wrongly mis-appreciated the facts of the matter in question including the evidence with regard to the said points to state that there is no evidence to prove the connection between accused No.5 and these two -3- organizations. On the contrary, after taking into consideration all these facts and material as has been placed before us by the learned Senior counsel, we are convinced and do not have any doubt in our minds that Accused No.5, in fact, was the main man who used to run the said two organizations.
We have specifically taking into consideration the fact that the trial court has specifically noted that accused Nos. 1 to 5 have not entered the witness box to put forth their say in the mailer or to answer with regard to incriminating materials put to them in the form of various questions in their Statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With regard to the complicity of Accused No.5, as has been pointed out by the Trial Court in the commission of offences and criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution correctly placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 13, 18, 19 and 20. We do not have any doubt that accused No.5 was the real king-pin in the matter in question. After considering the facts, it is absolutely clear that there was connection and at the instance and behest of the Accused No.5, everything has been done by the other accused in the matter in question which is also proved through the evidence which has been led before the Court including the telephone calls which they had and stood proved before the trial court. It is absolutely clear that the charges which have been specifically stated would not be denied by the accused and in fact, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the facts and the offences beyond any reasonable doubt. -4- In view of that, we find that the High Court has mis-appreciated the facts in question and overlooked the evidence which was placed before the Trial Court.
In these circumstances, we find that the Judgment delivered by the Trial Court cannot be said to be a faulty one and thus we have no hesitation to confirm the order so passed by the Trial Court by setting aside the order of the High Court, in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and as a consequence thereof, the conviction given by the Trial Court qua Accused No.5 shall be followed in toto. The accused is directed to serve the sentence.
......................J (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) ......................J (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI;
3RD MAY, 2017.-5-
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIC
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 87/2011
STATE OF KARNATAKA NOW C.B.I. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABDUL KAREEM TELGI Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 1981-1983/2013
(With appln.(s) for stay)
Date : 03/05/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anisha Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR (N.P.) For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR (N.P.) Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Adv.(A.C.) (N.P.) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Criminal Appeal No(s). 87/2011:- Heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Criminal Appeal Nos.1981-1983/2013:- None appeared for the respondents. List the Criminal Appeals after Summer Vacation.
(VISHAL ANAND) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
My Lord,
Criminal Appeal Nos.1981-1983 of 2013 filed by the CBI
challenging the concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the High Court regarding discharge of Accused – respondents viz.
(i) Mr. Mohd. Abdul Hafeez, (ii) Mr. Sohail Khan and (iiii) Mr. Mohd. Asif have also been listed along with the Abdul Kareem Telgi Matter.
Mrs. V.D. Makhija, learned Senior counsel addressed the Court in Abdul Kareem Telgi matter only.
Orders are solicited with regard to the Criminal Appeal Nos.1981-1983 of 2013 which were listed along with the Telgi matter. Paper Books are sent herewith for Your Lordship's kind perusal.