Delhi District Court
Moshin Azim Mullah Alias Suleman vs Cbi on 16 November, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) : DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 16/10
Case I.D No. 02401R0179212010
Moshin Azim Mullah alias Suleman
S/o Sh. Ahmad
R/o 1331, Ningapur Gali,
Khanapur, Belgam,
Karnataka ...APPELLANT
V e r s u s
CBI
E.O.U [V]
5th and 6th Floor, Block No. 3,
C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi. ...RESPONDENT
Date of institution: 01.05.10
Arguments heard: 03.11.10
Judgment announced: 16.11.10
JUDGMENT
By the present judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by appellant Mosin Azim Mullah U/S 374 Cr.PC against the impugned order of sentence dated 11.06.09 passed by Ld. MM. Ld. Trial Court passed the impugned order in the famous case known as Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 1/8 2 'Telgi Stamp Scam' which was one of the biggest scams at the relevant time. Vide the said order, Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant Mosin Azim Mullah as under:-
[i] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of offence U/S 120B r/w Sections 258, 259, 420, 471 and 213 IPC and in default of payment of fine, appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
[ii] To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of U/S 258 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
[iii] To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of offence U/S 259 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
[iv] To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of offence U/S 420 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
[v] To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of offence U/S 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 2/8 3 for a period of one year.
All the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC was also given to appellant.
2 Brief facts giving rise to filing of present appeal are that FIR No. 604/02 was registered at P.S Hauz Khas. Investigation, later on, was transferred to CBI. The offence in the present case was disclosed, when accused Mansoor Ahmed was arrested in a case at P.S. Darya Ganj. During investigation, it was found that accused Mansoor Ahmed, Mohsin Azim Mullah alias Suleman, Mohd. Asif alias Ashish Patel and Deepak Kudale were having office at Y-24,Green Park Main, New Delhi in the name and style of M/s. City Enterprises. Upon receiving a secret information, raid was conducted at the aforesaid address. Two accused persons namely, Mohd. Asif and Mansoor were found there. The decoy customer was asked for the purchase of 1000 revenue stamps on 5% commission but accused Mohd. Asif agreed to give only 2% commission. Upon much insistence, he agreed to give 5% commission. The decoy customer gave the numbered currency note and the accused Mohd. Asif handed over the revenue stamps. Both were apprehended and search was conducted. Stamps worth of Rs. 5,20,888/- were recovered. Both the accused disclosed that they were working for Abdul Karim Telgi, who was in Bangalore jail at that time. After completion of investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 3/8 4 chargesheets were filed against 16 persons in Ld. Sessions Court, which decided the issued of charge vide its order dated 26.02.08. Since the offences alleged against the applicant were found triable by the court of Ld. ACMM, the case was remanded back to the Ld. ACMM by Ld. Sessions Court.
3 The grounds taken by the appellant in appeal are that he has been in JC since 05.10.02; that he pleaded guilty to the charge through video conferencing alongwith other accused; that he has a young sister of marriageable age; that he did not participate in the commission of offence; that at the most, he was a servant, working for the master ; that Ld. Trial Court failed to exercise the judicial discretion properly; that the appellant is the sole bread earner of his family and has old aged parents.
4 I have heard arguments from ld. counsel for appellant Ld. Spl. PP for CBI. I have perused the appeal file as well as the trial court records.
5 In State of Punjab V. Rakesh Kumar 2009 Crl. L.J 396, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with sentencing policy, has observed that protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet challenges confronting the Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 4/8 5 society. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats.
It was further observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the criminal law adheres in general to the principles of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 5/8 6 to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Inevitably, these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. 6 In Sahdev V. Jaibar alias Jai Dev and Ors. 2009 V AD [SC] 515 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be - a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 6/8 7 should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 7 In the present case, Ld. Trial Court while passing the order on sentence observed as under:
" No doubt the offences committed by the convicts are of the kind of economic offences, but it cannot be said that these are not heinous crimes. If we consider the magnitude and the impact of the offences, committed by the convicts on the society, there remains no doubt that these are one of the most heinous crimes. The impact on the society was so adverse that the trust of the common man in the administration was completely shaken. Though no physical injury has been done to any human being, and it was in this sense that the Ld. Defence Counsels were submitting that the offences were not heinous, but the injury which these offences have caused to the common man in their confidence and Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 7/8 8 trust in the public administration is beyond any imagination. It was shocking that a person could, not only think of but also carry out such a devastating plan. Fake stamps worth hundreds of crores were got printed and sold to innocent customers as genuine stamps in a pre-planned and organised manner. All the convicts were in conspiracy with one another in carrying out the same."
8 After going through the material on record, I am of the considered view that the reasoning given by Ld. Trial Court on the issue of sentence, is in consonance with the spirit of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above. Hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.06.09 passed by Ld. Trial Court, which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant is hereby dismissed. The impugned order dated 11.06.09 passed by Ld. Trial Court is upheld.
Trial court record alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court today (Smt. Bimla Kumari)
on 16.11.10 ASJ(North)/Tis Hazari,Delhi.
Criminal Appeal No. 16/10 Page 8/8