Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Ram Parvesh, on 3 February, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
DJIIICUMASJ (WEST)/DELHI
***
SC No. 86/08
Unique ID No. 02401R1278892008
State Vs. 1. Ram Parvesh,
S/o Sh. Batahu Singh,
R/o Village Purayya,
PS & P.O. Lokhen,
Distt. Motihar, Bihar.
2. Madan,
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o Nayi Basti, Lallu ura,
Shiv Puran, Meerut, U.P.
3. Kaushal,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
4. Vinod,
S/o Sh. Mangat Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
(Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 1 of 24 )
5. Manoj,
S/o Sh. Mangat Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
FIR No. : 56/08
U/S : 489A, B, C, D & E IPC
PS : Jama Masjid
Date of Institution : 29.09.2008
Date of Arguments : 20.01.2011
Date of Order : 01.02.2011
J U D G M E N T
Accused Ram Parvesh, Madan, Kaushal, Vinod and Manoj have been sent to face trial for committing the offences punishable under Sec.489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E of Indian Penal Code. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.08.2008 SI Niaz Mehndi alongwith HC Brij Pal and some Constables was on patrolling duty near Subhash Park, Jama Masjid for prevention and detection of the crime. On that day at about 2.30 pm, on the basis of secret information regarding expected arrival of two persons with Fake Indian Currency Notes (hereinafter referred to as FICN) to deliver the same to one (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 2 of 24 ) Tinku at Dangal Ground, Main Gate, Jama Masjid, a raiding team was organised by SI Niaz Mehndi. Efforts were made to join some public persons but none agreed and at about 2.45 pm, nakkabandi was done at the Main Gate, Dangal Ground and at about 3.00 pm, two persons came on foot from Kabutar Market side and stopped at the gate of Dangal Ground who were identified by the secret informer to be the persons in possession of FICN. At about 3.10 pm those two persons were apprehended and their names were revealed as Ram Parvesh and Vinod Kumar. On search, accused Ram Parvesh was found in possession of 220 FICN in the denomination of Rs.100/ each having the number JLF98J465 on all the notes. Accused Vinod was found in possession of 180 FICN in the denomination of Rs. 100/ each having the number QM958J73 on all the notes which were sealed and seized. Accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod were arrested in this case and interrogated and at the instance of accused Vinod, accused Madan was arrested from his house at Meerut and from his possession, FICN worth Rs.25,000/ was recovered. Further at the instance of accused Vinod, accused Kaushal and Manoj were arrested and from their possession, two glass sheets on which with the help of scale and blade, fake (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 3 of 24 ) currency used to be cut, one HP Printer, Scanner and some fake currency partly prepared and some fully prepared were recovered which were also sealed and seized. One TV make LG was also recovered from their possession. Thus, the total fake currency notes of Rs.1,95,000/ was recovered from the possession of accused persons which had been prepared on scanning three genuine currency notes. Hence all the five accused persons were charge sheeted and sent to face trial for the offences complained of.
2. After compliance of the requirements of Section 207 CrPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. Arguments on the point of charge heard and all five accused persons were charged on 06.01.2009 for the offence punishable under Sec.120B IPC, 489A & 489B r/w Section 120B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in all in support of its case. All the accused persons have also been examined under Section 313 CrPC to enable them to explain the evidence appearing against them. Accused Ram Parvesh stated that he was doing the work of tailoring in Zafrabad, Delhi and on 29.07.2008 he came to Old Delhi Railway Station for goving to (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 4 of 24 ) his native place at Bihar where some police officials came and took him to Police Station on the pretext of making some enquiry and he was detained illegally in the police station for 23 days and later on falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Madan stated that he was doing the work of tailoring under the name and style of Priya Tailor and though nothing has been recovered from him, he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Vinod stated that he was running grocery shop at Modi Nagar. On 29.07.2008 he came to Sadar Bazaar, Delhi for purchasing some items from where police took him to police station and detained him illegally for 23 days and later on this false case was planted upon him. His brother Manoj was called by the police through telephone and he was also falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Kaushal and Manoj stated that they came to Delhi as Manoj received a telephone call regarding arrest of his brother Vinod by Delhi Police. Police also detained them illegally in the police station and later on they were falsely implicated in this case.
Accused persons have not led any evidence in their (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 5 of 24 ) defence.
5. PW1 HC Baljeet Kaur was the duty officer who has proved the computerised copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and also the endorsement Ex.PW1/B made by her on the rukka. PW2 Ct. Santosh Kumar was working as DD writer in the Spl.Cell, Central District and recorded DD No.23 regarding departure of SI Ram Niwas and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Ct.Vijay Singh recorded DD No.6 regarding departure of SI Niaz Mehndi and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW3/A. Further at about 3.50 pm he also recorded DD No.12 on receipt of telephonic information from SI Niaz Mehndi regarding apprehension of two persons with fake currency and sending of SI Ram Niwas to the spot and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW3/B. PW4 Sh. Sushil Kumar has been examined by the prosecution to prove that accused Manoj was a tenant under him on monthly rent of Rs.500/ one or two months prior to his arrest in this case. PW10 HC Surat Singh was the MHC(M) who proved the copy of relevant entries in register No.19 regarding deposit of case property on the relevant dates and also the copy of RC regarding sending of the case property to FSL Rohini as Ex.PW10/A to C and stated that so long the case property (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 6 of 24 ) remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with. PW11 Dr.Virender Singh, Sr.Scientific Officer has examined the case property and proved his report Ex.PW11/A as per which currency notes marked X1 to X1649, X425/1, Y1 to Y100 were counterfeit currency notes and currency notes marked X1650 to X1652 were genuine currency notes.
6. PW12 SI Niaz Mehndi, the first Investigating Officer stated that on 01.08.2008 he alongwith HC Brij Pal, Ct. Bagicha Singh, Ct. Kuldeep, Ct. Virender was on patrolling duty in the area of Subhash Park, Jama Masjid and at about 2.30 pm he received secret information regarding arrival of two boys with fake currency at the main gate of Dangal Ground to deliver the fake currency to one person namely Tinku. He organised raiding team and 45 passersby were also asked to join the investigation but none agreed. At about 2.45 pm, they alongwith secret informer reached at the Main Gate, Dangal Ground and nakkabandi was done. At about 3.00 pm, two boys came and stood near the main gate of Dangal Ground and were identified by the secret informer to be the persons in possession of FICN. At about 3.10 pm those boys were apprehended and their names were revealed as Ram Parvesh and Vinod Kumar. On search, (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 7 of 24 ) accused Ram Parvesh was found in possession of 220 FICN in the denomination of Rs.100/ each having the last two digit '65' and accused Vinod was found in possession of 180 FICN in the denomination of Rs.100/ each having the last two digit '73'. The recovered FICN were kept in separate pullandas, sealed and seized vide memos Ex.PW6/A and B and thereafter seal was handed over to HC Brij Pal. He also prepared the rukka Ex.PW12/A and got registered the case through Ct. Bagicha Singh. After sometime SI Ram Niwas reached the spot and he handed over the case property, seizure memos as well as custody of accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod to SI Ram Niwas who also prepared site plan on his pointing out. He has identified FICN Ex.P1 to be the same which was recovered from accused Ram Parvesh and Ex.P2 to be the same which was recovered from accused Vinod.
7. PW9 SI Ram Niwas is the second IO. He stated that on 01.08.2008 on receipt of information regarding further investigation to be conducted by him, he reached the spot where he met SI Niaz Mehndi and other members of the raiding party. He was handed over the case property and the documents prepared by SI Niaz Mehndi. He also prepared the site plan (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 8 of 24 ) Ex.PW9/A and arrested accused Ram, Parvesh and Vinod vide memos Ex.PW6/C1 and C2 and also prepared their personal search memos Ex.PW6/D1 and D2 and body inspection memos Ex.PW9/B and C and both the accused were also got medically examined. He also recorded the disclosure statements Ex.PW6/E1 and E2 of accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod.
PW9 SI Ram Niwas further stated that accused Vinod led them to Gali No.2, Nai Basti, Parkash Public School, Meerut from where accused Madan was arrested vide memo Ex.PW6/G1 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/G2. Accused Madan also produced FICN worth Rs.25,000/ in the denomination of Rs.100/ each which were sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/F and thereafter at the instance of accused Vinod, from his rented accommodation, accused Manoj and Kaushal were apprehended who were doing the job of cutting fake currency notes prepared there and from that room, FICN worth Rs.1,30,000/ were recovered which were kept in pullanda and sealed. From that room, two sheets of glass, one steel scale of 12 inches, five blade packets, white papers, HP scanner, printer and one TV make LG (21 inches) were also recovered. The fake currency notes and other items recovered from that (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 9 of 24 ) room were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/h. Three genuine currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/ each were also found lying behind the TV which were sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/H1. Thereafter accused Manoj and Kaushal were arrested vide memos Ex.PW6/J1 and J2 and their personal search memos Ex.PW6/J3 and J4 were prepared and they were also got medically examined. He has identified the FICN Ex.P3 to be the same which were recovered from accused Madan and FICN Ex.P4 to P7, other items i.e. two pieces of glass, one scale, five packets of razor blades, blank white papers HP printer, Scanner, copier with two leads Ex.P8, TV Ex.P9 and three genuine currency notes Ex.P10 be the same which were recovered from the room at Ghaziabad from where accused Manoj and Kaushal were arrested.
PW5 Ct. Kuldeep, Pw6 Ct. Bagicha Singh, PW8 HC Brij Pal were also the members of the raiding party headed by SI Niaz Mehndi and have deposed on the identical lines whereas PW7 Ct. Vijender Singh was given up by ld. Addl. PP for State being repetitive in nature.
8. I have heard Sh S.C. Sharma, Addl PP for the State and Sh. Ranvir Singh, Amicus Curaie for accused Madan and (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 10 of 24 ) Sh. Anant Singh, counsel for remaining four accused persons and also gone through the record carefully.
9. On behalf of State it has been submitted that initially accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod were arrested and fake currency recovered from their possession and it was on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Vinod, other co accused were arrested and from each of the accused, fake currency has been recovered and from the house of accused Kaushal and Manoj, the equipments used for making counterfeit notes alongwith three genuine currency notes have been recovered which is sufficient to establish conspiracy amongst all the accused persons to prepare fake currency and spreading/circulating the said fake currency in Delhi, Meerut and Bullandshehar. It is also established that they were trafficking in counterfeit currency notes after preparing the same at Ghaziabad. It is further submitted by Ld.Addl.PP that though no public witness has been joined in the instant case at any stage but that itself is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of police officials who had no enmity/hostility against the accused persons. So in view of their testimony regarding seizure of fake currency notes from possession of accused persons which is also (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 11 of 24 ) proved from FSL result, all the accused persons may be convicted in this case.
10. On behalf of accused persons, Sh. Ranvir Singh, amicus curiae for accused Madan and Sh. Anant Singh, counsel for remaining accused persons has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused persons have been preparing fake currency notes. It is further submitted that the equipments recovered in the instant case are TV, scanner, printer, glass sheets, blade, scale and there is no expert opinion to establish that with three genuine notes with the help of above equipments, the fake currency could have been prepared. It is further submitted that none of the accused was found trafficking in fake currency and at the most it a case where it can be said that the accused persons were in possession of the fake currency which is punishable under Section 489C IPC and so far as this aspect is concerned, there is no public witness to substantiate/corroborate the prosecution version regarding recovery of fake currency from these accused persons, hence they may be acquitted.
11. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the record. The accused persons have been (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 12 of 24 ) charged for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and under Section 489A & B r/w Section 120B IPC.
12. So far as Section 489A IPC is concerned, the prosecution was required to prove that (i) the note in question is a currency note or bank note; and (ii) the accused counterfeited it, or knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting it. For the offence punishable under Section 489 B IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that (i) the currency note or bank note in question was forged or counterfeit;
(ii) the accused sold to, or bought or received from, some person, or trafficked in, or used as genuine, such currency note or bank note; and (iii) when he did so he knew or had reason to believe that it was forged or counterfeit.
13. So far as conspiracy part is concerned, I agree with the prosecution that there cannot be any direct evidence on this aspect. No doubt the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy but from the acts/omission and commission of the accused, there must be something to establish that there was meeting of mind to commit the offence and in pursuant to that offence was committed. Since more often than not conspiracy would be proved on circumstantial evidence, four fundamental requirements as laid down (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 13 of 24 ) as far back as in 1881 in the judgment reported 60 years later at the suggestion of Rt. Hon'ble Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru 1941 Allahabad ALJR 416, Queen Empress Vs. Hoshhak may be reemphasised :
1) that the circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn be fully established;
2) that all the facts should be consistent with the hypothesis;
3) that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4) that the circumstances should, by a moral certainty, actually exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
14. Here in the instant case, accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod had been arrested from Main gate of Dangal Ground, Jama Masjid and after recovery of the fake currency from their possession, it is only the disclosure of the accused Vinod that other coaccused persons have been arrested. How accused Ram Parvesh got the fake currency or whether accused Vinod and Ram Parvesh have been getting the fake currency from other co accused so as to be involved in the conspiracy to traffick in the fake currency or prepare the fake currency, remains unestablished on record. The prosecution has failed to prove that (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 14 of 24 ) with the recovered instruments, which are ordinary blade, scale, printer and scanner etc., are not sophisticated enough to manufacture/prepare the counterfeit currency notes. It cannot be said that with the recovered instruments like TV, scanner, printer, blade, glass sheets, the fake currency can be prepared and circulated. So far as the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and Section 489A & 489B IPC is concerned, the evidence on record is absolutely insufficient to prove the guilt of any of the accused persons. It is relevant to mention here that as per the Secret information, two persons who were having fake currency and used to supply two counterfeit notes of Rs.100/ each in lieu of genuine currency note of Rs.100/, would come at Main Gate, Dangal Ground, Jama Masjid to deliver the fake currency to one Tinku. The raiding party could have waited for sometime to see the transaction and then apprehend the accused persons alongwith the person who could have purchased the fake currency i.e. 2 counterfeit notes in the denomination of Rs.100/ after paying genuine note of Rs.100/. It has also come in the FSL result that quality of the recovered notes is very poor. Even in the rukka itself the IO has mentioned that 'dekhne se hi jaali lagte hein'. When a bare look at the currency notes can make the (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 15 of 24 ) person suspicious then it is a matter of common sense that he will not pay genuine currency note of Rs.100/ to have two counterfeit notes of Rs.100/ each and invite the risk of being arrested with fake currency and also loose genuine currency note of Rs.100/. It is also relevant to mention here that for proving the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC there must be some transaction. In a case Syed Abbas Mehdi Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2005 VII AD (DELHI) 528, the facts of case were that the petitioner had fake currency notes having the face value of Rs.20,000/ in the denomination of note of Rs.1000/ each and he was apprehended near a shop where he was said to be about to purchase a bag using a counterfeit currency note of the denomination of Rs.1,000/. Counterfeit currency note was still in the hand of the petitioner who was yet to hand over the counterfeit currency note to the shopkeeper and get the bag. In view of the fact that the transaction of sale had not been completed, the property in the bag had not passed to the petitioner and the currency note had not been handed over to the shopkeeper, prima facie it was viewed that the ingredients of Section 489B were not made out.
15. So far as knowledge of the accused persons of they (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 16 of 24 ) being in possession of counterfeit currency notes in concerned, no defence is available with them because it has come in the evidence that the recovered currency notes were having the same number and even a layman knows that all the notes have different numbers and if they are having same number and notes are of same denomination, the notes must be counterfeit. He must be presumed to know that the notes were counterfeit as the bare look at such notes is sufficient to convince anybody about the notes being counterfeit.
16. Here in the instant case, none of the prosecution witness had seen any of the accused making or preparing the fake currency or using the same as genuine. Even there is no evidence to prove that with the recovered equipment, the recovered fake currency notes could have been prepared by the accused. Thus, I am of the considered view that so far as offence punishable under Sec.120B IPC and 489A & B r/w Sec.120B IPC are concerned, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against any of the accused persons.
17. Section 489C IPC deals with the possession of fake currency. From the statement of PW5 Ct. Kuldeep, PW6 Ct. Bagicha Singh, PW8 HC Brij Pal, PW9 SI Ram Niwas and (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 17 of 24 ) PW12 SI Niaz Mehndi, it is established on record that on the basis of secret information, accused Ram Parvesh and Vinod were apprehended from near the Main Gate of Dangal Ground and from accused Ram Parvesh, 220 FICN and from accused 180 FICN in the denomination of Rs.100/ each were recovered and on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Vinod, accused Madan was apprehended from Meerut and Manoj and Kaushal were apprehended from Ghaziabad, UP and from accused Madan, FICN worth Rs.25,000/ were recovered and from the room of accused Manoj and Kaushal, FICN worth Rs. 1,30,000/, two glass sheets, scale, blade, one HP Printer, Scanner, one TV were recovered. All the accused persons are not residents of Delhi and the police officials had no enmity or hostility with the accused persons. Accused Madan, Kaushal and Manoj have failed to explain how the police reached their house and apprehended them alongwith fake currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/. No doubt, no independent public witness has been joined in this case but that itself is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding recovery of fake currency from their respective possession. It is a matter of common knowledge that public witnesses are not (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 18 of 24 ) always willing to depose against their neighbourers or acquaintance but in the absence of any motive or enmity, the statement of police officials regarding recovery of fake currency notes from each of the accused persons can be believed. In this regard, reliance can be placed on State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew and another, AIR 1978 SC 1571 wherein it was held as under: "The evidence of the IO's cannot be branded as highly interested on ground that they want that the accused are convicted. Such a presumption runs counter to the wellrecognised principle that prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case."
18. In another case Sanjay Vs. NCT (2001) 3 SCC 190, the Apex court had observed that the mere fact that no independent witness was associated with recoveries is not a ground and that the investigation officer's evidence need not always be disbelieved and that of course, closer scrutiny of evidence is what is required.
19. In the instant case, although accused persons have not (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 19 of 24 ) been charged for the offence punishable under Sec.489C IPC but it being the lesser offence, they can safely be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.489C IPC for being found in possession of fake Indian currency notes.
20. In view of above discussion, all the five accused are held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.489C IPC and convicted accordingly, however, they are acquitted of the charges punishable under Sec.120B IPC, 489A & B r/w Sec. 120B IPC.
Announced in the open Court
01.02.2011 (PRATIBHA RANI)
DJIIIcumI/c ASJ (West)/Delhi
(Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 20 of 24 )
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
DJIIICUMASJ (WEST)/DELHI
***
SC No. 86/08
Unique ID No. 02401R1278892008
State Vs. 1. Ram Parvesh,
S/o Sh. Batahu Singh,
R/o Village Purayya,
PS & P.O. Lokhen,
Distt. Motihar, Bihar.
2. Madan,
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o Nayi Basti, Lallu ura,
Shiv Puran, Meerut, U.P.
3. Kaushal,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
4. Vinod,
S/o Sh. Mangat Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
(Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 21 of 24 )
5. Manoj,
S/o Sh. Mangat Singh,
R/o Village Sikri Kalan,
Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad,
U.P.
FIR No. : 56/08
U/S : 489C IPC
PS : Jama Masjid
Date of Arguments : 03.02.2011
Date of Order : 03.02.2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard Sh. Ranvir Singh, Amicus Curiae for convict Madan and Sh. Anant Singh, counsel for convicts Ram Parvesh, Kaushal, Vinod and Manoj. Sh. S.C. Sharma, Addl. PP has also made submissions on behalf of State.
2. On behalf of convict Ram Parvesh, it has been submitted that he is aged about 26 years and has wife and two children to support.
Convict Madan has submitted that he is aged about 45 years and is doing the tailoring work. He has wife, three daughters and one son and his elder daughter is of marriageable (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 22 of 24 ) age.
Convict Kaushal has submitted that he is a young man aged about 25 years and unmarried and has parents to support.
On behalf of convicts Vinod and Manoj, it has been submitted that they are aged about 25 years and 28 years respectively and real brothers. Convict Vinod is unmarried and Convict Manoj is married and they have parents to support.
It has been further submitted on behalf of convicts that they have clean antecedent and were never involved in any other case till their arrest in this case and they have already remained in custody and suffered enough for their acts, hence a lenient view has been prayed.
3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of convicts. Taking into consideration that the offence proved against these convicts is only regarding possession of fake currency and they have already remained in custody for substantial time and there is every possibility of they being now earning their livelihood with honest means, a chance can be given to them to reform themselves and to remain in the main stream.
4. Taking into consideration the entire facts and (Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 23 of 24 ) circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of all the convicts, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec.489C IPC. The period of detention already undergone by the convicts during investigation/trial of the case, if any, shall be set off under Sec.428 CrPC. Case property shall be confiscated to the State after the expiry of period of appeal, if any. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court
03.02.2011 (PRATIBHA RANI)
DJIIIcumI/c ASJ (West)/Delhi
(Sessions Case No.86/08) ( 24 of 24 )