Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1) Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen on 14 August, 2014

     IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
      JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Sessions Case No. 172/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0256232013

State          Vs.            1)      Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen
                                      S/o Budhpal Singh 
                                      R/o H. No. N­2/13, Budh Vihar, Ph­I.,
                                      Vijay Vihar, Delhi.
                                      (Convicted)

                              2)      Praveen 
                                      S/o Daya Nath 
                                      R/o A­2/458, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
                                      (Convicted)

                              3)      Mohd. Mohsin 
                                      S/o Mohd. Tahir, 
                                      R/o A­4/233, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
                                      (Convicted)

FIR No.                :      436/2013

Police Station         :      Sultanpuri

Under Section          :      489A/489B/489C/489D/34 Indian Penal Code.


Date of committal to Sessions Court  : 19.09.2013

Date on which orders were reserved  : 06.08.2014

Date on which judgment pronounced : 06.08.2014



State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri   Page 1 of 73
 JUDGMENT:

BRIEF FACTS:

(1) As per the allegations, on 21.07.2013 at 1:00 PM at Furit Market near Ganda Nala Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sultanpuri, the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Mohd. Moshin and Praveen were apprehended pursuant to which counterfeit currency notes of Rs.3,450/­, Rs.2,150/­ and Rs.2,150/­ of different denominations were recovered from their possession which they were using as genuine. It is also alleged that on the above said date time and place the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Mohd. Moshin and Praveen in furtherance of their common intention were making and were in possession of instruments / materials of counterfeiting currency notes (i.e. print copy scanner, stationery and another print copy scanner).

CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:

(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.07.2013 HC Lalit along with Ct. Indraj and Ct. Rajpal were on patrolling duty and were present near Rathi property Kanjhawala road, Krishan Vihar when a secret informer informed him that three boys involved in using counterfeit currency in the area were coming from Y Block Mangolpuri towards Krishan Vihar market at about 12:30 PM and the counterfeit currency can be recovered from them. Thereafter, HC Lalit and his team changed their uniform into civil clothes and near Rathi Properties they asked three to State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 2 of 73 four passerbyes to join the raiding party and one Kamal S/o Ramesh Mehra agreed join the raiding party. The police team along with Kamal and the secret informer then reached the spot i.e. at Ganda Nala, Krishan Vihar market and at about 1:00 PM, three boys found coming from Krishan Vihar side near Fruit Market on foot and the secret informer pointed out towards those boys as the same persons who were involved in the counterfeit currency business. Thereafter, at the instance of secret informer, all the three boys were over powered by the police officials. On interrogation their names came to be known as Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin. On formal search of accused Prince @ Sansar, currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs.50/­ were recovered from right pocket of his capri which notes appeared to be counterfeit and on interrogation he disclosed that the currency were forged one. On formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin, currency note of denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant which also appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and disclosed that the currency are forged one. Thereafter, on formal search of accused Parveen, the currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs.50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and disclosed that the currency are forged one. All three accused had disclosed that they were moving in the area for supplying the said counterfeit currency note in the market. Thereafter, the said information was conveyed to Duty State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 3 of 73 Officer of the Police Station pursuant to which SI Mahender Partap reached the spot and recorded the statement of HC Lalit on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. Thereafter, the accused led them to property No. C­45, Indra Enclave from where they got recovered a Scanner cum Printer with a genuine 100 rupee note inside the same which accused disclosed they were using for counterfeiting currency notes. Also, two pen of grey colour, one another pen and some papers recovered which were sealed and then seized. The accused then led the police party to property No. A­4/233, Sultanpuri and got recovered a Scanner which they disclosed they were using for counterfeiting the currency. After completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.

EVIDENCE:

(3) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Ten Witnesses:

Public Witnesses:

(4) PW5 Kamal has deposed that he is working as helper with Delhi Jal Board and on 21.07.2013, he was standing in Kishan Vihar for his personal work. According to the witness HC Lalit and another constable whose name he does not remember came to him in civil clothes at about 12 noon and asked him to join the raiding party as they had to State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 4 of 73 conduct a raid as regards information of a racket of running of counterfeit currency note business on which he agreed to join. Witness has further deposed that they were standing in Y Block Market which was near fruit market and one person was also with the raiding party but he do not know his name, pointed out towards three boys who runs the business of running counterfeit currency notes. According to the witness all the three boys were overpowered by the police party and the person who pointed out towards the three boys went away after pointing out and the said boys were interrogated and they disclosed their names as Prince, Mohsin and Praveen. Witness has further deposed that they were formally searched and the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from their pockets.

The said currency notes were also shown to him which appeared to him as counterfeit as these notes were appearing differently from the original notes and their numbers were also same. According to the witness he did not count the number of the currency notes and the said currency notes were also checked by the police officials and thereafter, HC Lalit informed the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that a Sub Inspector then came from the police station and the recovered notes were placed before the Sub Inspector and he also checked the same and found them to be counterfeit. According to the witness SI Mahender had prepared the sealed parcel of the aforesaid notes and the parcel was sealed with the seal and the seal impression he do not know and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 5 of 73 Witness has further deposed that the currency notes were recovered from all the accused persons but he does not remember as to from which accused how many currency notes were recovered. He has explained that the accused were being interrogated regarding counterfeit currency and the police officials were doing their writing work. According to the witness at about 6 or 7 PM, he was relieved from the spot and thereafter he went to his house and nothing else happened in his presence. (5) Witness has further deposed that one kele wala namely Shri Ram had also come there who had identified all the three boys as the same persons who had come to him with a counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/­, they had bought bananas for Rs.40/­ one day prior to of this incident and the said kele wala had given back them Rs.60/­. According to the witness, the said kele wala had also handed over to the Investigating Officer the currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/­ given by the accused persons to him, which the Investigating Officer examined and found them to be counterfeit and the said currency note was also kept in an envelope and sealed with the same seal and the said parcel was also taken into possession vide Seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. (6) Witness has further deposed that the accused persons were arrested in his presence and the memos regarding arrest were prepared and same are Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D & Ex.PW5/E. According to the witness they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 6 of 73 Ex.PW5/G & Ex.PW5/H. (7) During leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the state regarding number of notes etc. witness has deposed that he cannot say if 45 currency notes were recovered from accused Prince, 28 notes were recovered from Mohd. Mohsin and 28 notes were recovered from accused Praveen and has explained that he cannot give the number of counterfeit currency notes as they were not counted in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that the said currency notes were counted in his presence by the Investigating Officer and he had stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Confronted with portion A to A, portion B to B and portion C to C where the notes in number are mentioned. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not giving the currency notes in number deliberately in order to give the benefit to the accused persons. (8) Witness has correctly identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the denomination of Rs.100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs.100/­ is Ex.P1. The bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­ is Ex.P2. He has identified all the three accused by pointing out towards them in the Court.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 7 of 73 (9) During his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement that he is working in Delhi Jal Board. According to the witness at the time of incident, he was working as a Conductor in Gramin Seva and he is residing at House no. E­362, Sultan Puri, Delhi. Witness has further deposed that on the day of incident, he did not go for his job and states that he cannot tell the distance between place of arrest of accused persons and his house and has explained that he had gone to the place of arrest from his house in Gramin Seva. Witness has admitted that the place of apprehension of accused persons is a crowded area. According to the witness Investigating Officer had not called any other public person at the time of arrest of accused persons. He has explained that he had gone to the place of apprehension of accused for doing duty in the Gramin Seva. Witness has further deposed that the place from where the accused persons were apprehended was near a bus stand. He is unable to tell the registration number of the Gramin Seva in which he had to join the duty on the date of incident. According to the witness he did not know HC Lalit prior to incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that he knew HC Lalit prior to incident. Witness has further deposed that he did not read his statement which was recorded by the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that HC Lalit did not show his identity card to him. Witness has further deposed that the accused persons were coming on foot. According to the witness he cannot tell whether the person who State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 8 of 73 pointed out towards the accused was a public person or police official. He is also unable to tell the type and colour of clothes worn by the said person and says he cannot tell the age group from which the said person belonged and he cannot tell the language spoken by that person whether it was Hindi or some regional language and he cannot tell the height of that person. Witness has further deposed that the said person was on foot. According to the witness he cannot tell for how long Investigating Officer had talked with that person because he did not hear the same. Witness has further deposed that the person had not signed any of the documents and the said person had pointed out towards the accused from at a distance of about ten meters. According to the witness, distance between the place of meeting of police officials to the said person and place of apprehension of accused persons was about ten to fifteen meters and they went to the place of arrest on foot. According to the witness he cannot tell if the Investigating Officer had asked any other public person on the way to the spot to join the proceedings. Witness has further deposed that he along with police officials reached at the spot at about 1.00 PM and the person who pointed out towards the accused left from the spot at about 1.00 PM. According to the witness he cannot tell the direction in which the said person had proceeded after pointing out towards the accused persons.

(10) Witness has further deposed that the police official did not ask the said person to join the proceedings and SI Mahender was State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 9 of 73 informed by HC Lalit telephonically. According to the witness he does not know if HC Lalit informed the senior officers before the apprehension of accused persons. Witness has further deposed that HC Lalit had made a call to the Police Station but he cannot tell with whom he had spoken. According to the witness he cannot tell for how long HC Lalit had talked somebody from the police station on phone. Witness has further deposed that SI Mahender reached at the spot after about 20­25 minutes and SI Mahender was in uniform. According to the witness he does not know if SI Mahender came to the spot on foot or on some vehicle. He has explained that he did not depose as a witness in any court prior to his deposition in the court. Witness has further deposed that police had not recorded his statement but has clarified that on the asking of the court that the police had interrogated him after the entire proceedings and he told them whatever had happened though he cannot tell whether they recorded the same or not. Witness has further deposed that the seal which was put on the exhibits after SI Mahender came to the spot and saw all the currency notes which were then put in the white cloth and converted into pullanda. He has explained that only the currency note which was given by the banana seller was put in the white envelope whereas others were put in the white pullanda. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such recovery had been effected in his presence or that all the proceedings were done while sitting in the police State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 10 of 73 station. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has identified all the accused persons on pointing out of the police witness. Witness has denied the suggestion that the fake currency notes were planted on the accused and in order to justify the same, he was planted as a witness to the proceedings. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely on tutoring of the police.

(11) PW6 Ram Ugar has deposed that he is vendor and sells Bananas and he used to sell Bananas on his rehri at Kanjhawala road Krishna Vihar. According to the witness on 21.7.2013 he was selling bananas at the aforesaid place and he saw that a police party had caught hold three persons and he identified all the three persons and informed the Investigating Officer that on the previous day all the three boys had come to him and purchased bananas for Rs 40/­ and had given one note of denomination of Rs 100/­. Witness has further deposed that he had given them the balance amount of Rs 60/­ and when he checked the said note, he found it doubtful and showed the said note to some other rehri wala who also asked him that it appears to be forged, therefore he handed over the said note to the police who took the same into possession. According to the witness the police took the said note into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. According to the witness he can identify the accused persons and the case property if shown to him. (12) Witness has identified the accused Parveen and Prince in the court. According to the witness, he does not clearly recollect the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 11 of 73 third person but he can try to identify him if put to him specifically. Thereafter, the third accused Mohd. Mohsin was specifically put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP and the witness after carefully seeing him says that he is unable to identify him "tesre ko main nahi pehchan pa raha". (13) Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not identifying the accused Mohd. Mohsin deliberately in order to save him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused Mohd. Mohsin and therefore he was not identifying him correctly. (14) Witness has correctly identified one currency note amongst the other note of denomination of Rs 100/­ bearing No. 3CB 253749 as the same as given by the accused persons to him and which he handed over to the police. Same is separately EX P­1A.

(15) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has deposed that he studied up to 2nd standard and he is selling bananas in the market for about ten years. According to the witness he sells bananas from morning till night 11 PM. He is unable to tell to how many customers he had sold bananas one day prior to the date of incident. According to the witness he do not remember to which all customers he had sold bananas and in how much quantity prior to receiving the note of Rs.100/­. Witness has further deposed that he received Rs.100/­ note at about 8 PM but he had not checked the genuineness of Rs.100/­ note at the time when he received the same. According to the witness he cannot identify any customer to whom he had sold the bananas prior to receiving State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 12 of 73 the note of Rs.100/­. Witness has further deposed that he came to know that note is counterfeit currency on the next day when he had given the same to the godown owner of banana at about 6 or 7 AM. Witness has further deposed that he did not notice as to how many other notes of Rs.100/­ he was having at that time. He has stated that he had not put any identification mark on the said Rs.100/­ currency note but has voluntarily explained that till the next day he had all the Rs.100/­ currency notes which he had earned on the previous day and when the police asked him, he presented all the currency notes to them and it was from the said currency notes that this particular currency note was taken out. According to the witness he cannot tell the number of notes of Rs.100/­ he was having on that day and also on the day of his deposition. He also does not remember how much amount he had given to the godown owner on the next day. According to the witness he does not recollect as to how many notes of Rs.100/­ he was having prior to receiving of counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/­. Witness has further deposed that the statement of godown owner was not recorded by the police at any point of time. He has also stated that he had not informed the police officials about the note that note is counterfeit.

(16) Witness has further deposed that on that day, he started his work at 10.00 AM in the market as usual and the market was not crowded. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had identified State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 13 of 73 the two accused persons on pointing out of the police officials. Witness has denied the suggestion that the fake currency note was planted on the accused and in order to justify the same, he was planted as a witness to the proceedings. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing on tutoring of the police. According to the witness he does not remember if he had put signatures on any document. He also does not recollect how many public persons were present at the time of apprehension of accused persons. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such incident occurred either on 20.07.2013 or on 21.07.2013 as deposed by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the Police Station.

Police / Official Witnesses:

(17) PW1 HC Vijay Kumar has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and relied upon DD No. 24 A, copy of which is Ex.PW1/A, copy of FIR which is Ex.PW1/B and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW1/C (original DD entry and original FIR seen and returned). (18) In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was detained as duty officer from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at 03:35 PM, Ct. Rajpal No. 698/OD handed over him a rukka prepared by SI Mahender Pratap No. d­1388. According to the witness as DD No. 24A State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 14 of 73 was lodged and FIR No. 436/13 U/s 489A/ 489B / 489C / 489D / 34 IPC was lodged after which he handed over the rukka to CIPA operator for uploading the rukka in the computer. Witness has further deposed that after uploading the detail in computer, the original rukka along with computerized copy of FIR was handed over to Ct. Rajpal No. 698/OD with a direction to hand over the same to the investigating officer SI Mahender Pratap.

(19) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the rukka and the FIR has been ante dated and ante timed on the directions of the senior officers. (20) PW2 HC Ram Sewak has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he had relied upon entry in register No 21 vide RC No. 308/21, copy of which is Ex.PW2/A and receipt of FSL copy of which is Ex.PW2/B. (21) In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 26.07.2013 he received five exhibits (03 cloth pullanda and 02 paper envelope) along with the documents in the present case from MHC(M) case property, HC Ganga Sharan No. 3045/OD vide RC No. 308/21 dated 26.07.2013 and the same were deposited at currency note press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra on 29.07.2013 and received the acknowledgment from CNP Nasik and handed over the same to MHC(M) case property, HC Ganga Saharn No. 3045/OD. According to the witness during the period of his State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 15 of 73 custody, no tampering of the exhibits was made. (22) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the case property had been tampered during the time they remained in his possession. (23) PW3 HC Ganga Saran has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW3/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B and he rely upon entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 10205/13, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A (running into five pages), entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 308/21 copy of which is Ex.PW2/A and receipt of FSL which is Ex.PW2/B. (24) In his affidavit, witness has deposed that he was working as MHC(M) case property, police station Sultanpuri and he received the exhibits of the present case on 21.07.2013 and the same was entered in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 10205/13 dated 21.07.2013. (25) Witness has further deposed that on 26.07.2013 he handed over five exhibits (03 cloth pullanda and 02 paper envelope) along with the relevant documents to HC Ram Sewak No. 815/OD, vide RC No. 308/21, dated 26.07.2013 for depositing the same at currency note press, Nasik road, Nasik, Maharashtra. According to the witness during the period of his custody, no tampering of the exhibits was made and they were kept intact. Witness has further deposed that HC Ram Sewak No. 815/OD, after depositing the exhibits at currency note press, Nasik Road, State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 16 of 73 Nasik Maharashtra handed over the acknowledgment with copies RC to him.

(26) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the entires in the register No. 19 has been fabricated and the case property was tampered during the time it remained in his possession.

(27) PW4 M. P. Bains has deposed that on 29.07.2013 he was working as Assistant Works Manager, Currency Notes, Nasik and on that day he received sealed parcel from the SHO police station Sultan Puri duly sealed with the seal of Police Station for examination and expert opinion. According to the witness he opened the parcel and found 103 currency notes, 47 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.50/­ and 56 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­. Witness has further deposed that he examined the aforesaid currency notes and found 47 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.50/­ counterfeit and also 55 notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­ counterfeit and one currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ was found genuine. According to the witness he had filed his detailed report as Ex.PW4/A in respect of one currency note opined as genuine and his report in respect of remaining 102 currency notes as counterfeit is Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. According to the witness the envelope in which the report was sent to the SHO Police Station Sultanpuri in sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of Currency Note Press is Ex.PW4/C and the envelope was handed over to State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 17 of 73 Ct.Inder Raj Meena on 08.10.2013.

(28) Witness has also correctly identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the denomination of Rs.100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs.100/­ is Ex.P1. The bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­ is Ex.P2 and one currency note opined as genuine is Ex.P3. The envelope and the cloth parcel are collectively Ex.P4 and the envelope in which the currency notes were sent back is Ex.P5.

(29) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has admitted that no currency note of the denomination of Rs.50/­ amongst the above currency notes were found genuine. According to the witness he did not ask the Investigating Officer demanding any genuine note for comparison with the above said notes as it was not required. Witness has denied the suggestion that whenever the counterfeit currency is sent to them for opinion, the original notes are also sent by the Investigating Officer for comparison. Witness has further deposed that they match the counterfeit currency with their specimen note which is available in their office and not with the specimen note sent by the Investigating Officer which is not required. According to the witness he had mentioned on top, bottom and middle note in the bundle and he has mentioned this fact in his report and not each note and they had not mentioned the number on State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 18 of 73 the genuine specimen note by which the comparison in his report as same is not the practice. Witness has further deposed that he is diploma holder in Printing Technology and working for last 36 years in this organization.

Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not use the scientific methods while comparing the aforesaid notes with the scientific genuine specimen. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he had given the abovesaid report without applying his mind. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he is not competent person to file the said report.

(30) PW7 HC Lalit has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he was working as head constable in Krishan Vihar beat. According to the witness he along with Ct. Indraj and Ct. Rajpal were on patrolling duty and were present near Rathi property Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar and one secret informer informed him that three boys are involved in using the counterfeit currency in the congested area and are involved in this business for many days in Krishan Vihar market and they were about to come in Krishan Vihar market and the counterfeit currency can be recovered from them. Witness has further deposed that on this information they changed their police uniform into civil clothes and they requested 3­4 passerby to join the raiding party to which one Kamal S/o Ramesh Mehra became ready State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 19 of 73 to join therefore he was joined in the raiding party. According to the witness they all along with Kamal and secret informer reached at ganda nala, Krishan Vihar market. Witness has further deposed that at about 1 PM three boys found coming from Krishan Vihar side on foot and the secret informer pointed out towards them as the same person who are involved in the counterfeit currency business. According to the witness at the instance of secret informer all the three boys were over powered and interrogated and their names were known as Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin. Witness has further deposed that he conducted the formal search of accused Prince @ Sansar and the currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his capri which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and disclosed that the currency are forged one. According to the witness Ct. Indraj conducted the formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin and the currency note of denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and disclosed that the currency are forged one. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Rajpal conducted the formal search of accused Parveen and the currency note of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and disclosed that the currency were forged one. According to the witness all the three boys had disclosed that they were State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 20 of 73 moving in the area for supplying the said counterfeit currency note in the market and this information was conveyed to duty officer of the police station. Witness has further deposed that SI Mahender Partap came to the spot who recorded his statement Ex.PW7/A and the case property was handed over to SI Mahender who converted the same into parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal of MP and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and send the same to the Police Station through Ct. Rajpal who brought the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the spot and Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B at his instance. According to the witness during the said proceedings one Ram Ugre kele wala came to the spot who had identified all the three accused persons and he stated that these boys had come to him one day before and further informed that they had purchased bananas from him for Rs 40/­. Witness has further deposed that the accused persons had given him the currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ and Ram Ugre had given them the balance of Rs 60/­ and the said kele wala had produced one currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ as counterfeit currency note. Witness has further deposed that SI Mahender took the same and converted into parcel and sealed with the same seal and the said parcel was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. According to the witness the accused Parveen was arrested in State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 21 of 73 this case vide memo Ex.PW5/C, the accused Prince was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D, the accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/E. According to the witness they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H and they were thoroughly interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded separately. Witness has further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Mohsin is Ex.PW7/C, the disclosure statement of accused Prince is Ex.PW7/D and the disclosure statement of accused Parveen is Ex.PW7/E. Witness has further deposed that the statements of Kamal and Ram Ugre were recorded at the spot and they were relieved from the spot. According to the witness all the accused persons took them to C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak road, Aman Vihar Delhi and got recovered one printer scanner and accused Prince and Mohd. Mohsin informed that they had scanned the counterfeit currency with this scanner. Witness has further deposed that one genuine note was found inside the said scanner and the said currency note was also sealed separately with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession. According to the witness the accused Mohd. Mohsin and Prince disclosed that they used to prepare counterfeit currency with this genuine currency note. Witness has further deposed that one scanner make Cannon, two pen of grey color, one another pen, some papers etc. were also found there and the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed with State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 22 of 73 the seal of MP and the pullandas containing articles, scanner and the genuine currency note pullanda were taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW7/F. According to the witness thereafter all the three boys took them at A­4/233, Sultanpuri and pointed out the house of Mohd. Mohsin and got recovered one scanner and the said scanner was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G. According to the witness the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajpal and his statement was recorded and the case property were deposited with the MHC (M).

(31) Witness has identified all the accused persons by pointing out towards them and also by their names in the court in judicial custody. Witness has also identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs 100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs 50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs 100/­ is Ex.P­1. The bundle of denomination of Rs 50/­ is EX.P­2. He has also identified one carton box of cannon having particulars of the company which was duly packed with plastic tape. The same was opened and one printer / scanner along with lead along with some documents as the same as recovered from C­45, Indira Enclave. Same is Ex.P­3. The stationary items/documents are collectively Ex.P­4. Witness has also identified another carton box of State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 23 of 73 Cannon which was duly pasted with cello tape. The same was opened and another scanner / printer of same kind along with lead as the same as recovered from the house of Mohd. Mohsin. Same is Ex.P­5. (32) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has deposed that on 21.07.2013 his duty hours were from 8 AM till next day and they were on motorcycle at the time of patrolling on the date of incident and they met with secret informer at around 11.30 AM. According to the witness the secret informer had not given any information prior and subsequently to this case for any other crime and he had also not informed any senior officer about the secret information when he received the same and he had not reduced into writing the secret information. Witness has further deposed that he was in uniform at the time of patrolling on the date of incident and he had not made any arrival entry on the date of incident and has voluntarily explained that departure was made, but he cannot tell the said departure entry number. According to the witness, he does not know if Investigating Officer had placed the said DD on record. Witness has further deposed that distance between place of receiving information i.e. Beat and the place of apprehension of accused persons was 20­25 meters. He has stated that no notice was served to the public persons who refused to join the investigation. According to the witness, he had not called any public person to join the proceedings from Rathi Properties. He also does not know the name of owner of Rathi Properties. Witness has further deposed that he had State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 24 of 73 joined as Beat Constable just 3­4 months prior to the incident. According to the witness, the informer came to him on foot. He does not remember the colour of clothes worn by the secret informer and has explained that they went to the spot from the place of information on foot. Witness has further deposed that generally he informs his senior officers about the secret informations regarding such a serious crime but on the said day, he did not inform his senior officers about the same. According to the witness Secret informer pointed out towards the accused persons from the distance of 20­25 steps. He is unable to tell the exact time when the secret informer left the spot and he had not seen in which direction secret informer proceeded after giving information. Witness has further deposed that he also does not know from where secret informer came. He also did not inform his seniors in Police Station before conducting the search of accused persons after their apprehension. Witness has further deposed that witness Ram Ugar met him after the apprehension of accused persons and witness Kamal met him at the beat. According to the witness, he does not know for which work the witness Kamal came there and is also not aware of the occupation of Kamal. Witness has admitted that the witness Kamal is residing in Sultan Puri. Witness has further deposed that he offered his search to accused persons before taking their search and no memo was prepared in this regard. Witness has further deposed that he has not stated in his statement that he offered his search to the accused persons before taking their search. According State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 25 of 73 to him, he did not test the counterfeit currency notes before giving information to Police Station. Witness has further deposed that no chemical / powder was applied on his hands and on the hands of the Investigating Officer at the time of seizing the currency notes. He has stated that the Investigating Officer had not done any videography or photography at the time of seizing the counterfeit currency notes. Witness has further deposed that he had only telephoned to the duty officer who then sent SI Mahaender Pratap to the spot and has voluntarily added that he did not contact SI Mahender Pratap directly. Witness has further deposed that he was not aware if the duty officer had recorded a separate DD with regard to his call. According to the witness SI Mahender Pratap reached the spot within 15 minutes of his information to the duty officer and Ram Ugar had reached the spot after SI Mahender reached there.

(33) Witness has further deposed that witness Ram Ugar reached at the spot after sealing the case property by SI Mahender and no other seizure memo except the currency note of Rs.100/­ to SI Mahender was signed by Ram Ugar. According to the witness case property was sealed at about 2 PM and no document was prepared before sealing the case property by the Investigating Officer except his statement. Witness has further deposed that many public persons had gathered at the spot. He has explained that the Investigating Officer had asked public persons to join the investigation but no one agreed and no legal action / notice was State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 26 of 73 given to the public person who refused to join the investigation. Witness has further deposed that the seal put on the pullandas was made of brass. According to the witness the counterfeit currency notes were seized in cloth bag and they remained at the spot till 7:00 PM. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer had given any information to the SHO about the incident. Witness has further deposed that they left for C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase­II, Aman Vihar, Delhi at about 7:00 PM and the witness Kamal had not accompanied them. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer did not ask witness Kamal to join the investigation at that time and Kamal had left the spot at about 7:00 PM. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer had asked Ram Ugar to join the investigation. Witness has further deposed that they left in private car and one motorcycle to Indira Enclave. He does not recollect who were present in private car at the time of proceeding towards Indira Enclave. Witness has further deposed that he does not remember who were riding on motorcycle and has explained that the distance between place of arrest of accused persons and Indira Enclave is about 5­6 Kms. According to the witness no public person was asked to join the investigation on the way to Indira Enclave. He is not aware of the name of Police Station in whose jurisdiction Indira Enclave falls and has explained that no police officials of local police station were informed by the Investigating officer. (34) Witness has further deposed that he does not know if C­45 Indira Enclave was a rented or owned accommodation. He has explained State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 27 of 73 that C­45 is constructed upto two storeys. According to the witness neighbourers were called to join the investigation but no one agreed and no videography or photography was done by the Investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer had not asked about the bills of the printer at any time in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place. Witness has denied the suggestion that no recoveries of counterfeit currencies, printer, scanner and other articles were effected from the possession of the accused persons. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station on the directions of the senior officers while he only signed the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has identified the accused persons on the asking of the Investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused persons are innocent and has been falsely implicated. Witness has denied the suggestion that Kamal and Ram Ugar are their stock witnesses. Witness has admitted that he had not signed the seized pullandas.

(35) PW8 Ct. Indraj has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day he was working as head constable in Krishan Vihar beat and he along with HC Lalit and Ct. Rajpal were on patrolling duty and were present near Rathi property Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar. According to the witness, one secret informer informed HC Lalit that three boys who were involved in using State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 28 of 73 the counterfeit currency in congested areas and are involved in this business for many days in Krishan Vihar Market were about to come in Krishan Vihar Market and that counterfeit currency would be recovered from them. Witness has deposed that on this information, they changed their police uniform into civil clothes and HC Lalit requested 3­4 passerby to join the raiding party on which one Kamal S/o Ramesh Mehra was prepared to join them. Witness has further deposed that they all along with Kamal and Secret Informer reached at ganda nala, Krishan Vihar Market and at about 1:00 PM three boys found coming from Krishan Vihar side on foot and the secret informer pointed out towards them as the same person who are involved in the counterfeit currency business. Witness has further deposed that at the instance of secret informer all the three boys were over powered and interrogated. Their names came to be known as Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin. According to the witness HC Lalit conducted the formal search of accused Prince @ Sansar and the currency note of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his capri which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated on which he disclosed that the currency are forged one. Witness has further deposed that he conducted the formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin and the currency note of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant which appeared to be counterfeit on which he was interrogated and he State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 29 of 73 disclosed that the currency are forged one. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Rajpal conducted the formal search of accused Parveen and the currency note of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant which appeared to be counterfeit on which he was interrogated and he disclosed that the currency are forged one. According to the witness all the three boys had disclosed that they were moving in the area for supplying the said counterfeit currency note in the market and this information was conveyed to duty officer of the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that thereafter SI Mahender Partap came to the spot who recorded the statement of HC Lalit which is Ex.PW7/A and the case property was handed over by HC Lalit to SI Mahender who converted the same into parcel. Witness has further deposed that the parcel was sealed with the seal of MP and the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and send the same to the police station through Ct. Rajpal who brought the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the spot and Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B at the instance of HC Lalit. Witness has further deposed that during the said proceedings one Ram Ugre kele wala came to the spot who had identified all the three accused persons and informed that these boys had come to him one day before and had purchased bananas from him for Rs 40/­ after which accused persons had given him a currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ and Ram Ugre State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 30 of 73 had given them the balance of Rs. 60/­. The witness has deposed that thereafter the said kele wala produced one currency note of the denomination of Rs.100/­ as counterfeit currency note given to him by the accused. Witness has further deposed that SI Mahender took the same and converted into parcel and sealed with the same seal and the said parcel was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. Witness has further deposed that the accused Parveen was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/C, the accused Prince was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D, the accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/E. According to the witness they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H respectively. Witness has further deposed that the accused were thoroughly interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded separately and the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Mohsin is Ex.PW7/C, the disclosure statement of accused Prince is Ex.PW7/D and the disclosure statement of accused Parveen is Ex.PW7/E. According to the witness the statements of Kamal and Ram Ugre were recorded at the spot and they were relieved from the spot. Witness has further deposed that all the accused persons took them to C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak road, Aman Vihar Delhi and got recovered one printer scanner and accused Prince and Mohd. Mohsin informed that they has scanned the counterfeit currency with this scanner. According to the witness one genuine note State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 31 of 73 was found inside the said scanner and the said currency note was also sealed separately with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession. Witness has further deposed that the accused Mohd. Mohsin and Prince disclosed that they used to prepare counterfeit currency with this genuine currency note and one scanner make Cannon, two pen of grey color, one another pen, some papers etc were also found there. Witness has further deposed that the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MP and the pullandas containing articles, scanner and the genuine currency note pullanda were taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW7/F. According to the witness thereafter all the three boys took them at A­4/233, Sultanpuri and pointed out the house of Mohd. Mohsin and got recovered one scanner and the said scanner was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G and the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajpal and his statement was recorded and the case property were deposited with the MHC (M). (36) Witness has identified all the accused persons by pointing out towards them and also by their names in the court. Witness has identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs. 50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs 100/­ is Ex.P­1. The bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­ is Ex.P­2. Witness has identified one cartoon box of cannon State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 32 of 73 containing one printer / scanner along with lead along with some documents as the same as recovered from C­45, Indira Enclave which is Ex.P­3. The stationary items / documents are collectively Ex.P­4. He has also identified another cartoon box of Cannon and the scanner / printer of same kind along with lead as the same as recovered from the house of Mohd. Mohsin is Ex.P­5.

(37) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 21.07.2013 his duty hours were from 9 AM till 12 midnight and they were on motorcycle at the time of patrolling on the date of incident and has voluntarily explained that till Rathi they were on motorcycle and thereafter on foot. According to the witness they met the secret informer at around 11­11.30 AM and has explained that he was in uniform at the time of patrolling on the date of incident. Witness has further deposed that while leaving the police station he did not make any departure entry but on the return he made the wapsi entry. According to the witness distance between place of receiving information i.e. Beat and the place of apprehension of accused persons was 50­100 meters and no notice was served upon the public persons who refused to join the investigation. Witness has further deposed that HC Lalit had not called any public person to join the proceedings from Rathi Properties. He has stated that he was on the beat duty since about 2­3 months prior to this incident. Witness has further deposed that secret informer pointed out towards the accused persons from the distance of 15­20 steps and the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 33 of 73 secret informer remained with them till about 7:00 PM and then left. (38) Witness has further deposed that witness Ram Ugar met them after about one hour of the apprehension of accused persons and witness Kamal met them at Rathi Properties. According to the witness he did not know Kamal prior to this incident and he does not know for which purpose the witness Kamal come to that area. He is not aware of the occupation of Kamal and states that he resides at E­Block Sultanpuri. Witness has further deposed that he did not offer his search to the accused persons before taking their search. He has deposed that HC Lalit did not test the counterfeit currency notes before giving information to Police Station an has voluntarily explained that he had only examine the same by naked eye. According to the witness he did not put any powder or chemical in his hand while seizing the currency notes. Witness has further deposed that only SI Mahender Partap had done the photography of the currency notes while seizing the same and HC Lalit was with him at that time. According to him, SI Mahender Pratap reached the spot within 15 minutes of the information to the Duty Officer whereas Ram Ugar had reached the spot after about 15­20 minutes of SI Mahender reaching there.

(39) Witness has further deposed that when the witness Ram Ugar reached at the spot three pullandas had already been sealed. According to him, the pullandas was sealed at about 3­3:30 PM. He does not recollect if any document was prepared before sealing of the case property by the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 34 of 73 Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that many public persons were gathered at the spot and except for Kamal and Ram Ugar, no other person joined. According to the witness, the counterfeit currency notes were seized by putting them in a white paper and then in a cloth. He has stated that they remained at the spot till about 7:00 PM. He has further deposed that SI Mahender Partap had given the information to the SHO about the incident. Witness has also deposed that they left for C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase­II, Aman Vihar, Delhi after 7:30 PM i.e. around 8:00 PM. Witness has further deposed that witness Kamal was not with them when they were proceeding for Indira Enclave and in his presence SI Mahender Partap did not ask witness Kamal to join the investigation at that time. Witness has further deposed that Kamal had left the spot at about 7:00 PM and even Ram Ugar was not asked to join the investigations at Indira Enclave. He has explained that they left in private car and one motorcycle to Indira Enclave. He does not remember who were present in private car at the time of proceeding towards Indira Enclave. He does not remember who were riding on motorcycle. Witness has further deposed that distance between place of arrest of accused persons and Indira Enclave is about 2½ ­3 Kms and stated that no public person was asked to join the investigation on the way to Indira Enclave. He states that Indira Enclave falls in the jurisdiction of Police Station Aman Vihar.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 35 of 73 (40) Witness has further deposed that the property No. C­45 Indira Enclave was a rented accommodation and is built on 70 sq. feet land which is upto two floors. He states that in his presence the neighbors were not called. According to the witness, no videography or photography was done by the Investigating Officer in his presence. He has stated that the Investigating Officer had inquired about the bills of the printer in his presence but the accused did not hand over any bill. He has denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that no such recoveries of counterfeit currencies, printer, scanner and other articles were effected from the possession of the accused persons. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the Police Station on the directions of the senior officers while he only signed the same or that he has identified the accused persons on the asking of the investigating officer or that he has deposed falsely. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused persons are innocent and has been falsely implicated or that Kamal and Ram Ugar are their stock witnesses.

(41) PW9 Ct. Rajpal has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was posted at police station Sultanpuri and on that day he was working as head constable in Krishan Vihar beat. According to the witness, he along with HC Lalit and Ct. Indraj were on patrolling duty and were present near Rathi property Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar. He has further deposed that one secret informer informed HC Lalit that three boys were State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 36 of 73 using the counterfeit currency in the congested area and who were involved in this business for many days in Krishan Vihar Market would be coming Krishan Vihar Market when counterfeit currency could be recovered from them. Witness has further deposed that on this information they changed their police uniform into civil clothes and HC Lalit requested 3­4 passerbys to join the raiding party on which one Kamal S/o Ramesh Mehra became ready to join the raiding party. Witness has further deposed that they all along with Kamal and secret informer reached at Ganda Nala, Krishan Vihar market and at about 1:00 PM three boys were found coming from Krishan Vihar side on foot. The secret informer pointed out towards them as the same person who were involved in the counterfeit currency business. Witness has further deposed that at the instance of secret informer all the three boys were over powered and interrogated when their names were known as Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin. According to the witness HC Lalit conducted the formal search of accused Prince @ Sansar and 24 currency note of denomination of Rs 100/­ and 21 notes in the denomination of Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his capri which appeared to be counterfeit. Witness has further deposed that Seven notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ were having same number whereas other seven currency notes of Rs 100/­ were having other same number and Six notes in the denomination of Rs 100/­ were having another same number and four currency notes again in denomination of State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 37 of 73 Rs 100/­ were having another same number. Witness has further deposed that these were a total of 24 currency notes of Rs 100/­ as described aforesaid and 21 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 50/­ which showed a similar number. According to the witness he was interrogated and he disclosed that the currency was forged one. Ct. Indraj conducted the formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin and the currency notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant which appeared to be counterfeit. Witness has further deposed that the total number of currency notes recovered from Mohd. Mohsin were 13 in the denomination of Rs 50/­ of the same digit and 15 currency notes in the denomination of Rs 100/­ out of which seven contained one digit, seven contained another digit and one contained a separate digit. Thereafter, he was interrogated when disclosed that the currency are forged. Witness has further deposed that he conducted the formal search of accused Parveen and currency notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant which appeared to be counterfeit. According to the witness 13 currency notes in the denomination of Rs 50/­ of the same digit, seven currency notes in the denomination of Rs 100/­ of the same digit, seven currency notes were in the denomination of Rs 100/­ of another digit and one note in the denomination of Rs 100/­ was of other digit. Therefore, total number of currency notes were 28 as recovered from accused Parveen. Witness has further deposed that the said boy was interrogated and he State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 38 of 73 disclosed that the currency was forged. Thereafter, all the three boys had disclosed that they were moving in the area for supplying the said counterfeit currency note in the market. Witness has further deposed that this information was conveyed to duty officer of the Police Station and SI Mahender Partap came to the spot who recorded the statement of HC Lalit which is Ex.PW7/A. According to the witness the case property was handed over by HC Lalit to SI Mahender who converted the same into parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal of MP which parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him with the directions to take the same for the registration of the case and he carried this rukka to the police station and handed over the same to the duty officer who after registering the case handed over to him the copy of the FIR and original rukka which he brought back to the spot and handed over the same to SI Mahender Partap.

(42) Witness has further deposed that during the said proceedings one Ram Ugre kele wala came to the spot and identified all the three accused persons. Ram Ugar informed that these boys had come to him one day before and had purchased one dozen bananas from him for Rs 40/­. According to the witness the accused persons had given him the currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ and Ram Ugre had given them the balance of Rs 60/­. The said kele wala had produced one State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 39 of 73 currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ as counterfeit currency note. Witness has further deposed that SI Mahender took the same and converted it into parcel and sealed with the same seal and the said parcel was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. Witness has further deposed that the accused Parveen was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/C, the accused Prince was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D, the accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/E. Witness has further deposed that they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H respectively and they were thoroughly interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded separately. According to the witness the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Mohsin is Ex.PW7/C, the disclosure statement of accused Prince is Ex.PW7/D and the disclosure statement of accused Parveen is Ex.PW7/E. Witness has further deposed that the statements of Kamal and Ram Ugre were recorded at the spot and they were relieved from the spot and all the accused persons took them to C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak Road, Aman Vihar Delhi and got recovered one printer scanner and accused Prince and Mohd. Mohsin informed that they has scanned the counterfeit currency with this scanner. Witness has further deposed that one genuine note was found inside the said scanner and the said currency note was also sealed separately with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession. State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 40 of 73 According to the witness the accused Mohd. Mohsin and Prince disclosed that they used to prepare counterfeit currency with this genuine currency note. One scanner make Cannon, some papers etc were also found there. Witness has further deposed that the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MP and the pullandas containing articles, scanner and the genuine currency note pullanda were taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW7/F and thereafter all the three boys took them at A­4/233, Sultanpuri and pointed out the house of Mohd. Mohsin and got recovered one scanner. Witness has further deposed that the said scanner was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G and the seal after use was handed over to him and his statement was recorded and the case property were deposited with the MHC (M).

(43) In leading questions put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding articles seized at the spot, the witness has admitted that two green colored pens, one Natraj pencil, one nail cutter, one small scissor were also recovered from C­45, Indira Enclave and he can identify the same.

(44) Witness has identified all the accused persons by pointing out towards them and also by their names in the court. He has also identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs 50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 41 of 73 denomination of Rs 100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs 100/­ is Ex.P­1. The bundle of denomination of Rs 50/­ is Ex.P­2. Witness has identified one cartoon box of cannon containing one printer / scanner along with lead along with some documents as the same as recovered from C­45, Indira Enclave. Same is Ex.P­3. The stationary items/documents are collectively Ex.P­4. The witness has also identified another cartoon box of Cannon containing another scanner / printer of same kind along with lead as the same as recovered from the house of Mohd. Mohsin. Same is Ex.P­5. (45) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that they left for patrolling at about 10 AM and DD entry was made but he is not aware of the number of the same. He has stated that the distance between place of secret information and place of apprehension of accused is about 25­30 steps. According to the witness he does not know if HC Lalit has sent a secret information to senior officers or not and he is also not aware if the secret informer had given any information for any other crime prior and after this incident and he does not know if the secret informer belonged to Delhi or some other State. He also does not remember the colour of clothes worn by the secret informer but states that the clothes were simple and they were in uniform on the date of incident. Witness has further deposed that the public persons were asked to join the investigation at the place of information and no notice was served to the public persons who refused State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 42 of 73 to join the investigation. According to him, they went on foot to the place of arrest from the place of information. He deposed that the secret informer came to them on foot and had pointed out towards the accused persons from the distance of 2­3 steps. He is unable to tell as to why witness Kamal was present at the spot. He is also not aware if the witness Kamal was known to the Investigating Officer prior to this incident and has voluntarily added that he does not know him. Witness has further deposed that he did not meet the witness Kamal after this incident and Ram Ugar was not known to the Investigating Officer prior to this incident. Witness has admitted that the market where Ram Ugar used to sell bananas is situated in their Beat Area. According to the witness, he knew Ram Ugar by face but not by his name prior to the present case. Witness has further deposed that the secret informer after pointing out left in the direction of Budh Vihar.

(46) PW10 SI Mahender Partap has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and on that day on the receipt of DD No. 23 A, copy of which is Ex.PW10/A he along with Ct. Ravinder reached at fruit market, Kishan Vihar, Y block, Kanjhawala road where HC Lalit Kumar, Ct. Rajpal and Ct. Indraj were found caught hold three boys namely Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohsin and produced before him. Witness has further deposed that they had also produced 21 currency notes of denomination of Rs 50/­ and 24 currency notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ as recovered from accused Prince and State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 43 of 73 13 currency notes of denomination of Rs 50/­ and 15 currency notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ were recovered from accused Parveen and 13 currency notes of denomination of Rs 50/­ and 15 currency notes of denomination of Rs 100/­ were recovered from accused Mohd. Mohsin. Witness has further deposed that he then converted these currency notes of different denominations into three pullandas and sealed the same with the seal of MP and the sealed parcels was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A and he recorded the statement of HC Lalit which is Ex.PW7/A. According to the witness while he was interrogating HC Lalit one public person namely Ram Ugre kele wala came to the spot and he identified all the three accused persons as the boys who had come to him one day before and had purchased one dozen bananas from him for Rs.40/­. Witness has further deposed that he informed that accused persons had given him the currency note of the denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Ram Ugre had given them the balance of Rs 60/­ and the said kele wala had produced one currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ as counterfeit currency note. According to the witness he took the same and converted it into parcel and sealed with the same seal and the said parcel was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. He then prepared a rukka by making his endorsement on the statement of HC Lalit which is Ex.PW10/B and handed over the same to Ct. Rajpal with the directions to take the same for the registration of the case who after registering the case came back to the spot and handed over to him the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 44 of 73 copy of the FIR and original rukka.

(47) Witness has further deposed that in the meanwhile he prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW7/A at the instance of HC Lalit. The accused Parveen was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW5/C, the accused Prince was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/D, the accused Mohd. Mohsin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/E. According to the witness they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G and Ex.PW5/H respectively. They were thoroughly interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded separately. The disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Mohsin is Ex.PW7/C, the disclosure statement of accused Prince is Ex.PW7/D and the disclosure statement of accused Parveen is Ex.PW7/E. Witness has further deposed that he recorded the statements of Kamal and Ram Ugre at the spot and they were relieved from the spot and all the accused persons took them to C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak Road, Aman Vihar Delhi and got recovered one printer scanner. The accused Prince and Mohd. Mohsin informed that they had scanned the counterfeit currency with this scanner. Witness has further deposed that one genuine note was found inside the said scanner and the said currency note was also sealed separately with the same seal and thereafter taken into possession. Witness has further deposed that the accused Mohd. Mohsin and Prince disclosed that they used to prepare counterfeit currency with this genuine State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 45 of 73 currency note and one scanner make Cannon, two grey pens, one pencil of Natraj, Stationary items, semi printed notes, nail cutter, some papers etc were also found there and the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MP. Witness has further deposed that the pullandas containing articles, scanner and the genuine currency note pullanda were taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW7/F. Thereafter all the three boys took them at A­4/233, Sultanpuri and pointed out the house of Mohd. Mohsin and got recovered one scanner. Witness has further deposed that the said scanner was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G. According to the witness the seal after use was handed over to Ct. Rajpal and thereafter they returned to the police station where accused were put in the lockup. After getting them medically examined and he recorded the statements of witnesses and the case property were deposited with the MHC (M). Witness has further deposed that after necessary investigations he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court. (48) He has identified all the accused persons by pointing out towards them and also by their names in the court. Witness has identified one bundle of the currency notes in the denomination of Rs 100/­ containing 55 opined as counterfeit, one bundle of denomination of Rs 50/­ containing 47 opined as counterfeit and one currency note of the denomination of Rs 100/­ which was opined as genuine. The bundle of denomination of Rs 100/­ is Ex.P­1. The bundle of denomination of Rs. State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 46 of 73 50/­ is Ex.P­2. Witness has also identified one carton box of cannon containing one printer/scanner along with lead along with some documents as the same as recovered from C­45, Indira Enclave which is Ex.P­3. The stationary items/documents are collectively Ex.P­4. Witness has also identified another cartoon box of Cannon containing another scanner / printer of same kind along with lead as the same as recovered from the house of Mohd. Mohsin which is Ex.P­5.

(49) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 21.07.2013 he was in the police station and was on day duty when he received the information and he was handed over the copy of the DD No. 23 A by duty officer and asked to reach the fruit market, Kishan Vihar. According to the witness he reached the spot on his private motorcycle with Ct. Ravinder and both he and Ct. Ravinder were in uniform at that time. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the spot, HC Lalit, Ct. Indraj, Ct. Raj Pal were in civil and when he reached the spot only Kamal was present and Ram Ugar reached after about 2:30 PM. According to the witness when Ram Ugar reached the spot he had finished recording the statement of HC Lalit and has voluntarily added that this was the reason he could mention about his presence only in his endorsement which he made on the rukka which endorsement is Ex.PW10/B. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the spot only Kamal was present and therefore after Ram Ugar came. He has stated that he did not join any other public witness while State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 47 of 73 interrogating the accused. Witness has admitted that when he reached the spot the currency note had already been recovered. According to the witness they were lying open at that time and were sealed by him after converting into pullandas. He has explained that he checked the currency notes for their genuineness by physical examination by naked eye. Witness has further deposed that Kamal was not known to him previously and has explained that he is resident of Sultanpuri. He has also stated that Ram Ugar was also not known to him previously and has voluntarily explained that as per the information given to him by him, he is resident of Krishan Vihar. Witness has further deposed that no chemical/powder was applied on his hands before the seizure of the currency notes and he did not get any videography or photography of the currency notes done before seizing the same.

(50) Witness has admitted that witness Ram Ugar used to sell bananas in the same area where police beat is situated. Witness has further deposed that he had visited the area while performing the investigation proceedings and as per his knowledge witnesses Ram Ugar and Kamal are the witness in the present case only. As per his knowledge, they are not witnesses in any other cases of Police Station Sultanpuri. Witness has admitted that the entire documents were written from top to bottom when he had obtained the signatures of the witnesses. According to the witness no addition or alteration was made on any of the documents till date. He does not recollect if he had obtained the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 48 of 73 signatures of any public witness or police official witness on site plan. Witness has further deposed that no site plan was prepared at Indira Enclave from where Printer cum Scanner was taken into possession and seal was returned to him after 4­5 days. According to the witness, no handing over or memo regarding return of seal was prepared. Witness has explained that he had only switch on the scanner cum printer for the purposes of its functioning but he did not take any print out from the same and he did not obtain any sample of ink from cartridge. Witness has admitted that since he did not obtain any sample of ink, from cartridge, therefore there was no occasion for him for sending the same for examination. Witness has further deposed that he did not verify the past antecedents of witnesses Kamal and Ram Ugar ands he had not collected any document with regard to the ownership of the house C­45 Indira Enclave, Phase II, Aman Vihar, voluntarily added that he made inquiries from neighbors but he cannot tell their names and addresses. According to the witness he had not asked them to join the investigations. Witness has denied the suggestion that house No. C­45 is not owned by accused persons. Witness has further deposed that the witness Ram Ugar had only signed the seizure memo of the currency note of Rs 100/­ which he had handed over to him and case property was sealed at around 2­2:15 PM and the 100 rupees currency note which Ram Ugar had handed over after about 2:30 PM. According to the witness, many public persons had gathered at the spot and has voluntarily added State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 49 of 73 that the area is a fruit market where the market persons had collected. Witness has further deposed that he did not ask any other person to join the proceedings and has voluntarily added that there was no requirement as Kamal and Ram Ugar had already joined the proceedings. According to the witness the counterfeit currency notes which were seized from the possession of the accused were put in a cloth bag whereas the currency notes which were handed over by Ram Ugar was sealed in a paper envelope and they remained at the spot till 7:15­7:30 PM. He has stated that he did not inform the SHO personally and has voluntarily added that the duty officer had informed him.

(51) Witness has further deposed that they left for C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase­II, Aman Vihar, Delhi at about 7:15­7:30 PM and the Witnesses Kamal and Ram Ugar did not accompany them when they were proceeding for Indira Enclave. According to the witness they left in his private car and one private motorcycle and one official motorcycle to Indira Enclave. Witness has further deposed that HC Lalit and one more constable whose name he does not recollect was with him along with the accused and Ct. Ravinder and one more constable whose name he do not recollect were there on motorcycles. According to the witness distance between place of arrest of accused persons and Indira Enclave is approximately 2 Kms. Witness has admitted that Indira Enclave is a residential area. Witness has further deposed that he asked 1­2 public persons to join the investigations but they refused and has voluntarily State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 50 of 73 explained that the house in the neighborhood was locked. According to the witness he cannot tell the details of the public person who had refused to join the investigations and he also did not give any legal notice to the public persons for the said refusal. Witness has further deposed that Indira Enclave falls in the area of police station Aman Vihar and no information was given to the local police, voluntarily added that it is the area adjoining to their police station which falls in the same sub division. Witness has further deposed that as per interrogation, accused Parveen had disclosed that C­45 Indira Enclave is his own accommodation and it is built on about 70­75 Sq. yards and upto two storeys. According to the witness neighborers were called to join the investigation but no one agreed and the alleged recoveries were made from ground floor. Witness has further deposed that no videography or photography was done by him and he also did not call for the crime team. He has stated that he had inquired from the accused about the ownership of the printer / scanner but the accused were unable to provide any document regarding ownership despite claiming that they were the owners of the same. (52) Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused never claimed any ownership of the said printer cum scanner at any point of time or that that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused of his own only to plant this case upon them or that accused had not made any disclosure at any point of time. Witness has further denied the suggestion that no such incident took place or that no such recoveries of State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 51 of 73 counterfeit currencies, printer, scanner and other articles were effected from the possession of the accused persons or that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the Police Station. He further denied the suggestion that the receipt of the printer has been planted upon the accused to connect them with the case or that he has deposed falsely or that the accused persons are innocent and has been falsely implicated or that Kamal and Ram Ugar are their stock witnesses.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(53) After completing the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein the entire incriminating material / evidence against the accused persons were put to them which they have denied. According to the accused Prince @ Sansar he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police and all the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has further stated that the alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police to implicate him and that his signatures were obtained by the police officials forcibly on certain blank papers which were later on converted into various documents and memos to falsely implicate him in this case.

According to him, he was lifted by the police from his house and implicated in this case.

(54) According to the accused Praveen he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case after lifting him from his house and State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 52 of 73 that all the allegations against him are false and fabricated and alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police. According to him, his signatures were obtained by the police officials forcibly on certain blank papers which were later on converted into various documents and memos to falsely implicate him in this case.

(55) According to the accused Mohd. Moshin he is innocent and has been lifted by the police from his house and implicated in this case and all the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has further stated that the alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police to implicate him and that his signatures were obtained by the police officials forcibly on certain blank papers which were later on converted into various documents and memos to falsely implicate him in this case. In his defence, he has examined one Geeta as (DW1). (56) DW1 Geeta has deposed that in the intervening night of 19/20.07.2013 at around 1:00 AM (midnight), she was present in her house with her family and at that time she heard the noise of some people and thereafter she went outside of her house and found that Mohsin had opened the latch of the staircase. According to the witness, some persons who were in civil dress were forcibly taking Mohsin with them and did not disclose why they were taking Mohsin with them. She has deposed that the family members of Mohsin were also present at that time. According to the witness, she came to the court after receiving summons from this court.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 53 of 73 (57) In her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has deposed that she is residing in the area for the last four years and is a worker in the shoe factory on contract and used to leave house at 9:00 AM and return by 8:00 PM. She does not recollect the date of the week on which the date 19.07.2013 or 20.07.2013 fell and it was not her off and has voluntarily explained that there is an off on Sundays. She has stated that the house of Mohsin is in front of her house and she had good family relations with the family of Mohsin being neighbors. According to the witness, the persons who had taken Mohsin were in civil dress and at that time they did not know who had taken Mohsin and has voluntarily stated that she came to know later but she is unable to tell after how many days she came to know about this fact that Mohsin had been taken by the police. She admits that at that time she did not know who had taken Mohsin and the witness is unable to identify the said persons. She has stated that she did not inform any authority including senior officers of the court that Mohsin had been lifted illegally and also did not make any 100 number call to inform the police that Mohsin had been lifted by some persons in civil dress nor in her presence anybody from the family of Mohsin made any call to the police in this regard nor any complaint has been made by her to any authority. She has explained that she has come to the court for the first time. She is unable to tell the date on which the Holi, Deewali or Dushera fell in year 2013 or the date of the Birthday of her daughter. She is also unable to tell the birth anniversary of Mahatma State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 54 of 73 Gandhi or the date on which the Independence Day or Republic day celebrated. She has denied that the date of 19/20.07.2013 was given to her by family of Mohsin or that she has been tutored by the family of Mohsin. FINDINGS:

(58) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel, considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the accused and the prosecution.

(59) Firstly in so far as the identification of the accused Prince @ Sansar, Mohd. Mohsin and Praveen is concerned, none of them were known to the witnesses previously. They were apprehended at the spot of incident along with counterfeit currency and have been named in the FIR which was registered pursuant to their arrest. All three accused have been correctly identified in the court both by the official witnesses and so also by the public witnesses Kamal (PW5) and Ram Ugar (PW6). In this background, I hold that the identity of the accused Prince @ Sansar, Mohd. Mohsin and Praveen stands established and proved. (60) Secondly it is the case of the prosecution that a secret information had been received by the beat constable HC Lalit that three boys involved in using counterfeit currency would be coming to the area and would be apprehended along with the counterfeit currency on which State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 55 of 73 this information was shared along with other members of the patrolling party i.e. HC Rajpal and HC Indraj. Thereafter, the members of the patrolling party immediately changed into Civil Clothes and shared this information with some public persons and requested them to join patrolling party on which one Kamal joined the patrolling party after which they all went to the spot and at about 1:00 PM, three boys were seen coming from Krishan Vihar side on foot and the secret informer pointed out towards those boys and thereafter he left the spot. Thereafter, all three boys were overpowered by the members of the patrolling party in the presence of public witness Kamal and on their sustained interrogation, they disclosed their names as Prince @ Sansar, Mohd.

Mohsin and Praveen. On casual search of accused Prince @ Sansar conducted by HC Lalit, currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from right pocket of his capri; on formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin conducted by Ct. Indraj, currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant and on formal search of accused Parveen conducted by Ct. Rajpal, the currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs.50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant. On interrogation, all three accused disclosed that the said currency notes were forged and they were moving in the area for supplying the said counterfeit currency note in the market. Thereafter, SI Mahender Pratap came to the spot and recorded the statement of HC Lalit and the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 56 of 73 recovered currency notes were taken into possession. The said apprehension, arrest and interrogation and recovery of the counterfeit currency notes has been duly proved by the members of the patrolling party i.e. HC Lalit (PW5), Ct. Indraj (PW8) and Ct. Rajpal (PW9). These statements of these police officials find independent corroboration from the testimonies of the public witness Kamal who had joined the raiding party of the police and was present at the spot right from the time of the pointing out the accused by the secret informer till their arrest. Their testimonies also find independent corroboration from the testimony of Ram Ugar. The counterfeit currency notes have also been produced in the court and duly identified by all these witnesses including Kamal and Ram Ugar as the same which were recovered from the possession of the accused Prince, Mohd. Mohsin and Parveen.

(61) Thirdly I may observe that in so far as the public witness Kamal (PW5) is concerned, he is the helper in the Delhi Jal Board and resides in the Sultanpuri area and has confirmed that on the date of incident i.e. 21.07.2013 he was standing at Krishan Vihar for his personal work when he was asked by HC Lalit to join the patrolling party. He has corroborated the testimonies of the police officials to the extent to they had come to raid certain persons who were carrying counterfeit currency notes. He has further confirmed that all the three boys were overpowered by the police party after the secret informer had pointed out them out and in his presence the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes was also State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 57 of 73 effected which were recovered from the accused persons. The relevant portion of testimony of Kamal (PW5) is reproduced as under:

"I am working as helper with Delhi Jal Board. On 21.07.2013, I was standing in Kishan Vihar for my personal work. HC Lalit and another constable whose name I do not remember came to me in civil clothes at about 12 noon and asked me to join the raiding party as they have to raid on the racket running counterfeit currency note business. I agreed to join. We were standing in Y Block Market which was near fruit market. One person was also with the raiding party but I do not know his name, pointed out towards three boys who runs the business of running counterfeit currency notes. All the three boys were overpowered by the police party. The person who pointed out towards the three boys went away after pointing out. The said boys were interrogated and they disclosed their names as Prince, Mohsin and Praveen. They were formally searched. The counterfeit currency notes were recovered from their pockets. The currency notes were also shown to me which appeared to me as counterfeit as their notes were appearing differently from the original notes and their numbers were also same. I did not count the number of the currency notes. The said currency notes were also checked by the police officials. Thereafter, HC Lalit informed the police station. SI sahab came from the police station. The recovered notes were placed before the SI Sahab. He also checked the same and found counterfeit. SI Mahender had prepared the sealed parcel of the State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 58 of 73 aforesaid notes and the parcel was sealed with the seal. The seal impression I do not know. The sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing my signatures at point A. The currency notes were recovered from all the accused persons but I do not remember as to from which accused how many currency notes were recovered. The accused were being interrogated regarding counterfeit currency and the police officials were doing their writing work. At about 6 or 7 PM, I was relieved from the spot and thereafter I went to my house. Nothing else happened in my presence. Prior to this, as I remember now one kele wala namely Shri Ram had also come there who had identified all the three boys as the same person who had come to him with a counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/­, and had bought bananas for Rs.40/­ one day prior to this incident and the said kele wala had given back them Rs.60/­. The said kele wala had also handed over the currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ given by the accused persons to him, to the IO which he examined and found counterfeit.

The said currency note was also kept in an envelope and sealed with the same seal. The said parcel was also taken into possession vide Seizure memo Ex.PW5/B bearing my signatures at point A. The accused persons were arrested in my presence. The memos regarding arrest were prepared and same are Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D & Ex.PW5/E at point A. They were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW5/F, Ex.PW5/G & State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 59 of 73 Ex.PW5/H bearing my signatures at point A. ....." (62) Witness Kamal has identified the accused persons in the court by pointing out towards them. He has also identified the counterfeit currency notes which had been seized by the police in his presence. In his cross­examination, he has stated that he was working as a Conductor in Gramin Sewa. He has denied that he was known to the accused Prince prior to the incident. He is unable to give the type and colour of the accused persons. He has stated that he did not actively participate in the interrogation of the accused by the police nor he heard what the police officials were asking the accused.

(63) Here I may observe that Kamal is an independent witness.

There is no history of animosity between him and the accused nor there is anything to substantiate that he was known to any of the member of the police party or was a stock witness of the police having deposed in any other case previously. He is a conductor in Gramin Sewa and has explained his presence at the spot which appears natural and probable. and hence his testimony cannot be doubted. He has identified his signatures on the documents regarding apprehension, arrest, disclosure statements of accused and seizure memos of the currency notes and also identified the accused and counterfeit currency recovered from them. He has also confirmed the presence of Ram Ugar (whom he refers to as Shri Ram in his testimony).

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 60 of 73 (64) Fourthly Ram Ugar (PW6) is a Banana Seller in the area who had been cheated by the accused persons a day earlier of their apprehension. He is an independent witness who has proved that on the date of arrest of the accused persons by the police, he confirmed to the police the use of counterfeit currency notes by the accused persons a day earlier when they purchased Bananas from him and gave him counterfeit hundred rupee note. He has not only proved that he himself had handed over the fake currency note which the accused had passed on to him a day earlier by using it as genuine but also confirmed the presence of the public witness Kamal. According to Ram Ugar, on 21.7.2013 when he was selling Banana in the area, he had seen the police with three persons when he immediately identified them as the persons who on the previous day purchased Banana from him for Rs.40/­ and gave him Rs.100/­ note out of which he returned Rs.60/­ back to them. However, later when he checked the said note of Rs.100/­ he found it doubtful and he therefore showed the said note to another rehri wala who also suspected it to be forged. He submits that he handed over the said note of Rs.100/­ to the police who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He has identified Prince and Parveen but he has not been able to identify the accused Moshin. He has also identified the currency note of Rs.100/­ bearing no. 3CB 253749 (Ex.P1a) as the one which was handed over to him by the accused and which he handed over to the police.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 61 of 73 (65) Witness Ram Ugar (PW6) has been cross examined at length. He is a poor Banana Seller and naturally when he received the currency note of Rs.100/­ which was forged one, it was a big loss for him. On the very next day when he noticed the accused at the same spot where he was selling Bananas, along with police officials, he informed the police about how he was cheated. He has denied that he is the stock witness of the police nor the accused are able to prove that Ram Ugar is a planted witness or that he is witness from the police in any other case or is a stock witness and hence there is not reason why his testimony should not be believed and that too when it finds independent corroboration from another public witness Kamal who confirms the presence of Ram Ugar as the Kelewala who had informed the police officials being cheated a day earlier by the accused persons. Incidentally in his testimony Kamal has confirmed the presence of Ram Ugar at the spot (though he names him as Shri Ram). Both Ram Ugar and Kamal are not known to each other. It was only when the accused were apprehended and Ram Ugar came to the spot that Kamal saw him first time. I therefore find the testimony of Ram Ugar truthful and credible.

(66) Fifthly the members of the police party i.e. HC Lalit, Ct. Indraj and Ct. Rajpal and the SI Mahender Pratap have proved the registration of the FIR, formal interrogation of the accused after which the accused persons led them to C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak Road, Aman Vihar Delhi, and got recovered one printer scanner and State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 62 of 73 accused Prince and Mohd. Mohsin informed that they had scanned the counterfeit currency with this scanner. They have further proved that thereafter one genuine note was found inside the said scanner and the said currency note which was also sealed and seized separately and taken into possession. These witnesses have further corroborated each other on the aspect that thereafter the accused Mohd. Mohsin and Prince disclosed that they used to prepare counterfeit currency with this genuine currency note. They have further proved that one scanner make Cannon, two pen of grey color, one another pen, some papers etc. were also found there and the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of MP and the pullandas containing articles, scanner and the genuine currency note pullanda were taken into possession vide seizure Ex.PW7/F, which articles (Ex.P3 and P4) have been produced in the court and identified by these witnesses. Thereafter, all three accused took the police party at A­4/233, Sultanpuri and pointed out the house of Mohd. Mohsin and got recovered one scanner which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/G which is Ex.P5 and has been identified by these witnesses in the court. It is the case of the prosecution that the House C­45, Indra Enclave, Phase II, Mubarak Road, Aman Vihar, belongs to the accused Parveen as disclosed by accused to them him and it is built on about 70­75 Sq. yards and upto two storeys, whereas House No. A­4/233, Sultanpuri is reported to be belonging to Mohd. Moshin.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 63 of 73 (67) In this regard I may observe that the seizure of these scanners and other stationeries as aforesaid have not been witnessed by any independent public person. The disclosure statements of the accused having being recorded, the Investigating Officer was already aware that they were going with the accused for purposes of recoveries, why then the witness Kamal who was with them throughout the investigation was discharged and Ram Ugar who was also present, relieved and strangely no other public witness was joined which act of the Investigating Officer appears suspicious and raises question on the genuineness of the recovery of these instruments.

(68) Sixthly the IO did not lift any sample ink from both the scanners Ex.P3 and Ex.P5, allegedly recovered by them, nor was the print out taken from the scanner nor sent to Forensic Lab for comparison. The stationary i.e. grey pens, pencil, etc, were also not sent for forensic examination to establish that the currency notes found in possession of the accused and also used as genuine with Ram Ugar were counterfeit by using these instruments i.e. scanners, stationery, etc. (69) Seventhly the IO has not collected any document regarding ownership of House No. C­45, Indira Enclave or House No. A­4/233, Sultanpuri where the alleged instruments were allegedly recovered nor examined any witness i.e. occupants of these houses or neighbours etc. to prove the use of these premises by the accused.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 64 of 73 (70) Eighthly I find it extremely strange that despite the offence being serious, the beat staff does not bother to inform their senior officers, not even the SHO regarding the secret information nor makes any entry of the same. Assuming that there was no time, yet an information to the Duty Officer would have sufficient. Even later, after the arrest of the accused, the IO Sub Inspector Mahender Pratap despite aware of the contents of the disclosure, did not pass any information to the senior officers which raises serious questions on the alleged recoveries of scanners and stationeries made later. (71) Ninthly, however the fact that the currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused persons and the note handed over to the police by Ram Ugar were counterfeit, stands proved from the report filed by Sh. M. P. Bain Assistant Works Manager, Currency Note Press, Nasik vide report Ex.PW4/A who has proved that he had received 103 currency notes out of which 47 currency notes were of denomination of Rs.50/­ and 56 currency notes were of the denomination of Rs.100/­. He further proved that on examination, 47 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.50/­ and 55 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/­ were found to be counterfeit whereas one currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ (which was recovered from inside the printer­ cum­scanner which is Ex.P3) was found to be genuine. He has proved his detailed report in respect of one currency note opined as genuine vide Ex.PW4/A and in respect of remaining 102 currency notes as counterfeit State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 65 of 73 vide Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. He has identified the bundle of denomination of Rs.100/­ which is Ex.P1; the bundle of denomination of Rs.50/­which is Ex.P2; one currency note opined as genuine which is Ex.P3. He has in his cross examination explained that no currency note of denomination of Rs.50/­ was found to be genuine. [ Here I may note that it is the case of the prosecution that no genuine currency note in the denomination of Rs.50/­ was found by the police.] (72) Lastly I may observe that in his defence, the accused Mohd. Moshin has examined one Geeta as his defence witness who in her oral testimony has stated that on the intervening night of 19/20.07.2013 at around 1:00 AM (midnight) she had seen police officials taking away the accused Mohd. Mohsin from his house i.e. A­4/233, Sultanpuri. Her testimony is not very convincing. She is closely known to the family of accused Mohd. Mohsin and had not made any complaint to any authority regarding false implication of Mohd. Mohsin at any point of time has made this statement for the first time in the court and hence his defence does not meet the case put forth by the prosecution.

(73) In view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that on 21.07.2013 at about 1:00 PM at Fuirt Market near Ganda Nala, Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar, the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Mohd., Mohsin, and Praveen were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes in the denominations of Rs.50/­ and Rs. 100/­. It stands established that the accused Prince and Praveen along State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 66 of 73 with another associate had deceptively used these scanned document resembling a currency note while purchasing Bananas from Ram Ugar which makes them liable for the offence under Section 489 E of Indian Penal Code and not under Section 489 B of Indian Penal Code. (74) However, in so far as the aspect of the accused being found in possession of one printer scanner containing one genuine currency note in the denomination of Rs.100/­ and other instruments used i.e. two pen of grey colour, one another pen and another some papers etc. (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) and another scanner (Ex.P5) which they had allegedly used in counterfeiting currency notes is concerned, the same has not been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt for which benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused.

(75) In view of the above, the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin are liable for the offence under Section 489­C Indian Penal Code. The accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen and Parveen are also liable for the lessor offence under Section 489­E Indian Penal Code (not under Section 489­B of IPC). However, all the three accused namely Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin are liable to acquitted of the charges under Section 489/489­B/489­D Indian Penal Code.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 67 of 73 FINAL CONCLUSION:

(76) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda­vs­State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(77) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the Investigating Officers. The identity of State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 68 of 73 the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin stands established and proved. On the basis of the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:

➢ That on 21.07.2013 HC Lalit along with Ct. Indraj and Ct. Rajpal were on patrolling duty and were present near Rathi property Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar. ➢ That a secret informer informed HC Lalit that three boys involved in using counterfeit currency in the area will be coming from Y Block Mangolpuri towards Krishan Vihar market at about 12:30 PM and this counterfeit currency could be recovered from them.

➢ That thereafter, HC Lalit and his team changed their uniform into civil clothes and near Rathi Properties they asked three to four passerbyes to join the raiding party on which one Kamal S/o Ramesh Mehra agreed join the raiding party.

➢ That thereafter, the police team along with Kamal and the secret informer reached the spot i.e. at Ganda Nala, Krishan Vihar market and at about 1:00 PM three boys found coming from Krishan Vihar side near Fruit Market on foot.

➢ That the secret informer pointed out towards those boys as the same persons who were involved in the counterfeit State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 69 of 73 currency business.

➢ That thereafter, at the instance of secret informer, all the three boys were over powered by the police officials and on interrogation their names were known as Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin.

➢ That on formal search of accused Prince @ Sansar, currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from right pocket of his capri which notes appeared to be counterfeit and on interrogation he disclosed that the currency was counterfeit.

➢ That on formal search of accused Mohd. Mohsin, currency note of denomination of Rs. 100/­ and Rs 50/­ were recovered from the left pocket of his jeans pant which also appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and he disclosed that the currency was counterfeit.

➢ That on formal search of accused Parveen, the currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ and Rs.50/­ were recovered from the right pocket of his pant which appeared to be counterfeit and he was interrogated and he disclosed that the currency was counterfeit.

➢ That Ram Ugar (Banana Seller) who puts his Rehri in the same area, saw the accused persons along with the police State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 70 of 73 at the spot and he informed the police that on the previous day, the accused Parveen and Prince along with another associate (accused Mohd. Mohsin not identified by him) purchased banana for Rs.40/­ from him and gave him a note of Rs.100/­ which note he later on came to know was forged.

➢ That Ram Ugar handed over the said counterfeit currency note of Rs.100/­ which the accused had given to him and used as genuine, to the police who seized the same. ➢ That thereafter, the information was conveyed to Duty Officer of the Police Station pursuant to which SI Mahender Partap reached the spot and recorded the statement of HC Lalit on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.

➢ That the accused Prince got recovered one printer scanner containing one genuine currency note in the denomination of Rs.100/­ along with other instruments used i.e. two pen of grey colour, one another pen, some papers etc. (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) ➢ That the accused Mohd. Mohsin was found in possession of one sprinter / scanner (Ex.P5) used in counterfeit currency notes.

➢ That on examination, the bundle of 46 currency notes in State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 71 of 73 the denomination of Rs.100/­ (Ex.P1) and the bundle of 55 currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/­ recovered from the possession of the accused persons, were found to be counterfeit currency whereas one currency note of denomination of Rs.100/­ (Ex.P3) which was recovered from inside the scanner / printer has been opined as genuine.

(78) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency does not negate the offence. (79) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 72 of 73 corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. (80) In view of the above discussions, the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin are hereby held guilty for the offence under Section 489­C Indian Penal Code. The accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen and Parveen are also held guilty for the lessor offence under Section 489­E Indian Penal Code (not under Section 489­B of IPC). However, all the three accused namely Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 489/489­B/489­D Indian Penal Code. (81) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 12.8.2014.

Announced in the open Court                              (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 06.08.2014                                     ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri   Page 73 of 73
      IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
      JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Sessions Case No. 172/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0256232013
State      Vs.         1)  Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen
                           S/o Budhpal Singh 
                           R/o H. No. N­2/13, Budh Vihar, Ph­I.,
                           Vijay Vihar, Delhi.
                           (Convicted)

                              2)      Praveen 
                                      S/o Daya Nath 
                                      R/o A­2/458, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
                                      (Convicted)

                              3)    Mohd. Mohsin 
                                    S/o Mohd. Tahir, 
                                    R/o A­4/233, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
                                    (Convicted)
FIR No.                :      436/2013
Police Station         :      Sultanpuri
Under Section          :      489A/489B/489C/489D/34 Indian Penal Code.

Date of conviction     :              06.08.2014
Arguments concluded on   :            12.08.2014
Date of Sentence       :              14.08.2014


APPEARANCE:

Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Convicts in Judicial Custody with Sh. Gajraj Singh and Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Advocates.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 74 of 73 ORDER ON SENTENCE:

(1) As per the allegations, on 21.07.2013 at 1:00 PM at Furit Market near Ganda Nala Kanjhawala Road, Krishan Vihar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sultanpuri, the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Mohd. Moshin and Praveen were apprehended pursuant to which counterfeit currency notes of Rs.3,450/­, Rs.2,150/­ and Rs.2,150/­ of different denominations were recovered from their possession which they were using as genuine. It is also alleged that on the above said date time and place the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Mohd. Moshin and Praveen in furtherance of their common intention were making and were in possession of instruments / materials of counterfeiting currency notes (i.e. print copy scanner, stationery and another print copy scanner). (2) However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution, particularly public witnesses namely Kamal (PW5) and Ram Ugar (PW6), this Court vide a detailed Judgment dated 06.08.2014 has held the accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin guilty for the offence under Section 489­C Indian Penal Code. The accused Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen and Parveen have also been held guilty for the lessor offence under Section 489­E Indian Penal Code (not under Section 489­B of IPC).

(3) Further, all the three accused namely Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen, Parveen and Mohd. Mohsin have been acquitted of the charges State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 75 of 73 under Section 489/489­B/489­D Indian Penal Code.

(4) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen is a young boy of 21 years of age, unmarried, class 10th passed, unemployed, having a family comprising of mother (widow) and one younger sister studying in the school. He has remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of One Year Twenty Three Days. He is first time offender having no previous involvement. (5) The convict Mohd. Mohsin is a young boy of 21 years of age, unmarried, studied upto B. Com. 1st year, unemployed, having a family comprising of father (labour), mother (housewife) and three younger brothers who are studying in the school. He has remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of One Year Twenty Three Days. He is first time offender having no previous involvement. (6) The convict Praveen is a young boy of 22 years of age, unmarried, studied upto class 10th, doing the work of AC repair, having a family comprising of father (shopkeeper), mother (housewife), four brothers and one sister. He has remained in Judicial Custody in the present case for a period of One Year Twenty Three Days. He is first time offender having no previous involvement.

(7) I have considered the rival contentions. The convicts are all young boys belonging to poor families, first time offenders having no criminal record of any kind and any harsh view at this stage would ruin State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 76 of 73 their entire future and career prospects. They have already remained in Judicial Custody for substantive period. In this background, I am of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met by awarding the following sentence to the convicts.

(8) Convict Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen is sentenced as follows:

➢ For the offence under Section 489­C Indian Penal Code, the convict Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year and One Month and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­. In default of deposit of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

➢ For the offence under Section 489­E Indian Penal Code, the convict Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen is sentenced to fine of Rs.100/­. In default of deposit of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Day.

(9) Convict Mohd. Mohsin is sentenced as follows:

➢ For the offence under Section 489­C Indian Penal Code, the convict Mohd. Mohsin is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One Year and One Month and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­. In default of deposit of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 77 of 73

 (10)           Convict Parveen is sentenced as follows:

           ➢    For the offence under  Section 489­C Indian Penal Code, 

                the   convict       Parveen       is   sentenced   to         Rigorous 

                Imprisonment  for a period of  One Year  and  One Month 

and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/­. In default of deposit of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.

➢ For the offence under Section 489­E Indian Penal Code, the convict Parveen is sentenced to fine of Rs.100/­. In default of deposit of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Day.

(11) All the above sentences in respect of all the convicts shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to the convicts for the period already undergone by them, as per rules. (12) The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34­37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.

(13) One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri Page 78 of 73 with their jail warrants.

(14)          File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced in the open Court                              (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 14.08.2014                                      ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




State Vs. Prince @ Sansar @ Naveen etc., FIR No. 436/13, PS Sultanpuri   Page 79 of 73