Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sc No. 6/14, Cbi vs . Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 72 on 6 December, 2016

  IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL, SPECIAL JUDGE
         (P.C. ACT), CBI­08, CENTRAL DISTRICT
               TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI


New Case No.                        : 28067/2016 (Old SC No. 6/14)
FIR No.                             : RC 220 2012 E0007 EOU­VI/EO­II
PS                                  : CBI/EOU.VI/New Delhi
U/s                                 : 120­B r/w Sections 489B & 489C IPC & 
                                      substantive offences thereof


CNR No.                             : DLCT01­000831­2012


Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

                        Versus

1.

Mehrool Nisha @ Mehrun @ Meharoonanisha W/o Mohd. Hanif @ Khaleel R/o H. No. 1278 Delhi Darwaza Gali Malian, PS Delhi Gate  Aligarh, UP Also at:

Usman Para Haathi Wala Pul Aligarh, UP

2. Arastoon @ Hajjan Arastoon W/o Late Sh. Imamuddin R/o H. No 214, Khai Dora, Sarai Gawali Teh Kol, PS Kotwali District Aligarh, UP Date of FIR :  21.03.2012 Date of Institution :  20.06.2012 Arguments concluded on :  21.11.2016 SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 1 of  72 Date of Judgment :  06.12.2016 J U D G M E N T Both the accused persons namely Mehrool Nisha (A­1) and Hajjan Arastoon (A­2) have been sent to face trial by the CBI for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 489B and 489C IPC, as well  as  the substantive  offences  thereof, on  allegations that they   had   hatched   a   criminal   conspiracy   with   one   Pappu   @ Ashfaq S/o Mushtaq, resident of Lahore, Pakistan (since not arrested) to smuggle Fake Indian Currency Notes (FICN) to India and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, they both had visited Lahore, Pakistan in January, 2012 and brought FICN worth Rs. 2,36,000/­ and Rs. 60,000/­ respectively concealed in   cigarette   packets  and   they   reached   at  Old   Delhi   Railway Station (ODRS) by Samjhauta Express train on 20.03.2012 at around 3:00 AM with the above amounts of FICN.  The FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ were also allegedly recovered from the possession of A­1 on 20.03.2012 after she was apprehended from   the   waiting   hall   of   platform   no.   1   of   ODRS   at   around 12:00   noon   and   further   FICN   worth   Rs.   60,000/­   were   also subsequently recovered on 27.03.2012 in a raid conducted at the house of A­2 in Aligarh, UP.

2. The   factual   matrix   of   this   case   is   that   on 19.03.2012 a secret information was received in the office of SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 2 of  72 DRI,   Delhi   to   the   effect   that   one   65   years   old   lady  having brownish hair, wearing white printed kurta, white plain salwar and V­shape chappal will come from Pakistan at (ODRS), at platform no. 1, by Samjhauta Express on 20.03.2012 in the early   morning   time.     It   was   also   contained   in   the   said information that the above lady was to bring some FICN in a yellowish mehrun colour cloth bag and was to hand over the said FICN to a male person of Indian origin, aged around 20­ 22 years.  Thereafter, a raiding team of DRI officers consisting of PW2 Sh. Deepak Khatri, PW4 Sh. A. C. Sharma, PW11 Sh. Ajay Bhasin, Sh. J. P. Raju, all Intelligence Officers and one lady   officer/PW9   Ms.   Kanwal   Kanta   Malhotra,   Sr.   Tax Assistant (STA) of DRI, and also some subordinate staff, was constituted   in   the   evening   of   19.03.2012   and   they   all   were instructed to stay in the office itself during the night of that day. Two independent witnesses namely Sh. Suraj Bhan/PW7 and Sh. Harish Kumar were also arranged by the DRI officers and made to join the above raiding team and these independent witnesses were also made to stay in the DRI office during the said night.

3. It is alleged that all members of the raiding team, including the two independent witnesses, were subsequently apprised   about   the   above   secret   information   and   thereafter, they all left the DRI office and reached at platform no. 1 of ODRS,   on   Chandni   Chowk   side,   at   around   2:30   AM.     All SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 3 of  72 members   of   the   team   took   their   respective   positions   at   the platform   and   started   waiting   for   arrival   of   the   above   train, which reached at the said platform at around 3:10 AM.   The members   of   the   team   started   keeping   a   watch   on   the passengers   getting   down   from   the   said   train   and   after sometime,   they   had   noticed   one   old   lady   on   the   above platform   and   she   was   coming   towards   them   and   her description was found matching with the description of the lady as conveyed in the secret information.   That lady reached in the waiting hall located on the above platform and sat there and   started   waiting   for   someone   and   she   remained   seated there   till   around   12:00   noon   of   20.03.2012   and   during   that period, nobody came to meet her and then suddenly she got up,  picked her baggage consisting of one yellowish mehrun colour cloth  bag  and  started moving out  of  the  waiting  hall. The members of the DRI had then stopped the said lady and introduced themselves to her by showing their ID cards and on enquiry the identity of the said lady was revealed as accused Mehrool Nisha (A­1).  The DRI officers asked A­1 to show her passport, to which she replied that it was taken away by her relative, whose name was perhaps Ms. Hajjan Urs, a resident of Aligarh, UP.

4. It   is   also   the   case   of   CBI   that   members   of   the raiding team of DRI then apprised A­1 about contents of the above   secret   information   and   also   regarding   her   being   in SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 4 of  72 possession of some FICN, but she replied in negative.   One written notice U/s 102 of the Customs Act Ex. PW2/A (copy thereof is D­5 and is part of Ex. PW3/A­colly) was then given to   A­1   by   the   DRI   officers   and   she   was   informed   that   her search, as well as the search of her baggage, was required to be   conducted   in   connection   with   the   above   said   secret information and if she desired, the same could be conducted before   a   Gazetted   Officer   or   a   Magistrate.     Vide   her   reply given   on   the   said   notice   itself,   the   accused   refused   to   get herself searched before a Gazetted Officer and rather offered her personal search by any female officer and the search of her baggage by any officer of DRI.   Since the accused was illiterate, hence, on her request, her above reply was recorded on the notice Ex. PW2/A by PW9, but the same was thumb marked  by  the  accused.     Further,   since   the  above   place  of apprehension of A­1 was a crowded and unsafe place, it is alleged that on request of the accused, she was taken to the DRI office situated at IP Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi and there   her   personal   search   was   conducted   by   PW9   in   a separate room and in privacy, but nothing incriminating was recovered in the said search and only some cash amount and documents, including her tickets, were recovered in the said search.  

5. It is also alleged that thereafter, the DRI officials had   searched   the   above   yellowish   mehrun   colour   cloth   bag SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 5 of  72 being   carried   by   A­1   and   it   was   found   to   contain   one   blue colour polythene and some documents, including one election card Ex. PW2/C in the name of one Khaleel, one railway ticket Ex. PW2/D  from Attari  to Delhi  of date 19.03.2012 and two paper   slips   Ex.   PW2/E   and   Ex.   PW2/F   (copies   of   these documents   are   D­8   to  D­10   on   record).     The   search   of  the above blue colour polythene bag was also then conducted by the DRI officials and it was found to contain three cartons of cigarettes of 'ESSE BLUE' brand, made in Korea, containing 10 packets in each carton in a transparent packing and each packet   of   cigarettes   further   contained   20   cigarettes   and   the above   cartons   were   given   markings   as   X,   Y   and   Z   for   the purposes of identification.  Thereafter, the above three cartons marked X, Y and Z were opened by the DRI officials one by one and 200 FICN of Rs. 500/­ each were recovered from the packet marked X, 114 FICN of Rs. 500/­ each were recovered from packet the marked Y and 79 FICN of Rs. 1,000/­ each were recovered from the packet marked Z and thus, total FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ were recovered from the possession of A­1, which were found concealed in the cigarettes contained in the above packets and cartons.

6. It is also alleged that then the DRI officers told A­1 that the above FICN were liable for confiscation U/s 11 of the Customs   Act   and   hence,   the   same   were   also   taken   into possession,   alongwith   packing   material   thereof,   the   above SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 6 of  72 yellowish   mehrun   colour   cloth   bag   and   clothes   contained therein and also the above blue colour polythene recovered from   the   said   cloth   bag   as   the   same   constituted   the concealment material of the above FICN.  Thereafter, the DRI officers had arranged two small steel boxes/ trunks and in one box,   they   placed   all   the   recovered   FICN,   after   these   FICN were put in small zip locked polythenes, and in the other steel box they had put all the above concealment material, i.e. the empty cigarette packets, left over genuine cigarettes and the polypacking of cartons etc, and these two steel boxes were then further put into separate white markin clothes and parcels thereof were prepared, which were sealed with the seal of DRI and particulars of the case were mentioned on these parcels and   the   same   were   further   signed   by   the   two   independent witnesses   and   some   officers   of   DRI,   on   paper   slips   pasted thereon.  One separate parcel of the above yellowish mehrun colour cloth bag, blue colour polythene and the clothes found therein   was   also   prepared,   sealed   and   signed   in   the   same manner.   The DRI officials had further prepared one detailed panchnama Ex. PW2/B (copy thereof is D­4 and also part of Ex. PW3/A­colly) with regard to the above said   proceedings and the contents of the said panchnama were explained to all, including the accused and two panch witnesses, and details of the above FICN recovered from possession of A­1 were also noted down on separate sheets and these sheets were made as Annexure A to the said panchnama.  It is alleged that all the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 7 of  72 above recovered FICN appeared to be fake on the face itself as the water mark, which remains there on the original notes, was not found present on the seized FICN, the markings on the   notes   were   also   not   embossed   and   further   the   security threads in these notes were also found missing.

7. It   is   further   the   case   of   CBI   that   thereafter,   the summons Ex. PW4/A U/s 108 of the Customs Act were served upon A­1 by PW3 Sh. B. K. Banerjee and in response to the said summons, A­1 had tendered her voluntary statement Ex. PW4/B  under  the above  said provisions  before  PW3,  which was reduced into writing by PW6 Ms. Poonam Aggarwal as the   accused   was   illiterate   (copies   of   Ex.   PW4/A   and   Ex. PW4/B are D­6 and D­7 respectively on record and are also part of Ex. PW3/A­colly).  In her above statement Ex. PW4/B, A1 disclosed that A­2 was her aunt (mami) in relation and the name of A­2's husband was late Sh. Imamuddin and she also disclosed   the   residential   address   of   A­2   in   Aligarh,   UP   and further that they both had gone to Pakistan around two months back by Samjhauta Express and stayed at the house of her cousin named Pappu at Lahore for about two months and it was her second visit to Pakistan.   It was further disclosed by A­1 in her above statement, inter­alia, that they both started back for Delhi from Lahore on 19.03.2012 at around 6:00 AM by Samjhauta Express again and they were dropped at railway station of  Lahore  by the  above  Pappu  and  Pappu  had  also SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 8 of  72 handed over to her the above 3 cartons of cigarettes and he further   handed   over   3­4   such   cartons   of   cigarettes   to   A­2, while telling them these cigarette cartons were to handed over to   a   person   aged   around   20­22   years,   who   was   to   contact them at ODRS.   It was further disclosed by A­1 in her above statement,   inter­alia,   that   at   the   time   of   handing   over   these cartons to both of them, Pappu also told them that the above cartons were having FICN concealed therein and the person who was to contact these cigarette cartons from them would pay both of them Rs. 10,000/­ each.  It was also disclosed by A­1 in her above statement Ex. PW4/B,  inter­alia,  that after taking   these   cigarette   cartons   from   Pappu,   they   both   had concealed   these   cartons   under   clothes   in   their   respective baggages and after reaching at ODRS at around 3:00 AM on 20.03.2012, they both started waiting for the said person in the waiting hall at platform no. 1.  It was further disclosed by her in her above statement, inter­alia, that though she kept waiting for the said person in the waiting hall till around 12:00 noon on 20.03.2012, but A­2 left the station about one hour prior to her apprehension   in   this   case.     She   also   admitted   her apprehension by the DRI officials and the subsequent search and seizure proceedings conducted with regard to the above FICN recovered from her possession in her above statement.

8. Since   the   accused   (A­1)   appeared   to   have committed   offences   punishable   U/ss   132   and   135   of   the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 9 of  72 Customs Act, 1962, she was arrested and her personal search conducted by the DRI officers vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/C dated   21.03.2012   (copy   thereof   is   D­11   and   part   of   Ex. PW3/A­colly), got medically examined on the same day from RML Hospital vide MLC Mark PW4/1, on an application Ex. PW4/D, and she was kept in the lock up of PS Daryaganj in Rahdari   vide  application  Ex.  PW4/E   during  that  night  as  no sufficient time was left for her production in the court and she also failed to produce any surety despite being told that the above said offences were bailable.   The intimation about her arrest was also given to her husband vide telegram Ex. PW4/F and receipt Ex. PW3/C.  On the next day, she was taken out from the above lockup and produced in the court, after she was   got   medically   examined   fresh   vide   MLC   Mark   PW4/2. Thereafter,   vide   letter   Ex.   PW1/A   (D­2)   dated   21.03.2012, PW1 Sh. Jainender Singh Kandhari (J. S. Kandhari) of DRI had   made   a   complaint   to   the   SP,   CBI,   EOW­II   regarding seizure   of   the   above   FICN   valuing   Rs.   2,36,000/­   from possession of A­1 and on basis of the said complaint, the FIR Ex.   PW18/A   (D­1)   of   this   case   was   registered   under   the provisions of Section 120­B r/w Sections 489B and 489C IPC and investigation of the case was assigned to IO (Investigating Officer)/PW20   Inspector   Sanjay   Sehgal.     A­2   was   formally arrested by the CBI in this case on 23.03.2012, after she was produced   in   the   court   of   Ld   CMM,   Delhi   on   production warrants.  

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 10 of  72

9. It is also alleged that on being authorized by PW1 Sh. J. S. Kandhari of DRI vide letter Ex. PW4/G (D­14) dated 03.04.2012,   PW4   Sh.   A.   C.   Sharma,   alongwith   PW2   Sh. Deepak   Khatri,   had   carried   and   got   deposited   the   sealed parcel containing the above recovered FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ from possession of A­1 with the Currency Notes Press (CNP), Nashik, Maharashtra on 10.04.2012 in intact condition against acknowledgment Ex. PW4/H given by PW8 Sh. Partha Pranov Bose, the then Assistant Works Manager of CNP. Vide report Ex.   PW4/J   dated   12.04.2012   given   by   PW8,   the   recovered FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ were opined as fake and counterfeit.

10. The information about seizure of above FICN was also conveyed by the DRI, New Delhi to their counterparts at Lucknow and on its basis, PW14 Sh. Dinesh Bouddh, Deputy Director of Lucknow Zonal Unit of DRI, had issued one search warrant/authorization dated 26.03.2012 in favour of PW12 Sh. Karunesh   Srivastava,   IO   for   search   of   the   house   of   A­2   in Aligarh, UP.  On basis of the said search authorization, a team of the DRI officers, including PW12 and PW13 Sh. Ashutosh Dixit,   another   IO   of   DRI,   PW26   Inspector   Satyendra   Singh, SHO of PS City, Kotwali, Aligarh and some other officials of the   above   local   PS,   had   conducted   search   of   ground   floor portion of the house of A­2 in Aligarh on 27.03.2012, which portion was stated to be in possession of the said accused. The above search proceedings are also alleged to have been SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 11 of  72 carried out in presence of PW16 Sh. Tola Pehalwan, PW17 Sh. Hasim and PW19 Sh. Anis, who all are neighbours of A­2, and also PW15 Ms. Sultana Begum, who is daughter­in­law of A­2 residing at third floor of the said premises at the relevant time.  It is alleged that during the search of one room located on ground floor of the said house of A­2, the DRI officers of Lucknow   Unit   had   recovered   one   similar   cigarette   carton containing   92   FICN   of   Rs.   500/­   each   and   14   FICN   of   Rs. 1,000/­ each, i.e. total FICN amounting to Rs. 60,000/­, which were also found concealed in the cigarettes contained in the cigarette packets of the said carton.  These recovered FICN of Rs. 60,000/­, as well as the packing material thereof etc, were also sealed by the officials of DRI, Lucknow  and the above search   and   seizure   proceedings   were   duly   reflected   in   the panchnama Ex. PW12/A (copy thereof is also Mark PW12/1) prepared by PW12 and details of these currency notes were again   mentioned   on   separate   sheets,   which   were   made annexure to the said panchnama.  The sealed envelope parcel containing FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ recovered from the house of A­2   was   deposited   with   CNP,   Nashik,   Maharashtra   on 28.05.2012 by Sh. Vikas Asthana, IO of DRI, Lucknow against acknowledgment   Ex.   PW21/A   given   by   PW21   Sh.   J.   K. Chaudhary, the  then  Assistant  Works Manager  of  CNP  and vide   his   report   Ex.   PW21/B   dated   29.05.2012,   PW21   had opined these FICN also to be fake and counterfeit (both these documents   are   available   in   file   of   case   FIR   No.   95/2012 SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 12 of  72 registered U/s 489B and 489C IPC against A­2 at PS, Kotwali, Aligarh, UP) 

11. The   IO/PW20   of   this   case   collected   attested copies   of   the   relevant   documents   pertaining   to   the   above seizure of FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ and arrest etc of A­1 from the officials of DRI, which consisted of, inter­alia, a copy of panchnama & its annexure, copies of documents recovered from possession of A­1, copy of notice U/s 102 of the Customs Act & summons U/s 108 of the said Act given to A­1 and the statement tendered by her in response to the said summons, which are Ex. PW3/A­colly (D­4 to D­12) and the same were handed over to him by PW1 vide letter Ex. PW1/B (D­3) dated 30.03.2012.  Vide another letter dated 19.04.2012 Ex. PW5/A (D­13), PW5 Sh. R. Roy of DRI had also forwarded to the CBI attested   copies   of   some   other   documents   pertaining   to   the above   seizure   effected   from   possession   of   A­1   and   these documents included a copy of the letter dated 03.04.2012 Ex. PW4/G   (D­14)   addressed   to   CNP,   Nashik,   the   report   dated 12.04.2012 given by CNP, Nashik and copy of one other letter dated 03.04.2012 received from DRI, Lucknow, which are Ex. PW5/B (D­15) and Ex. PW5/C (D­16) respectively.  On being deputed by the IO/PW20, PW23 Sh. Naresh Indora, DSP, CBI visited   the   office   of   FRRO   at   Attari   Border,   Amritsar   and collected the details and documents pertaining to the above visit of A­2 to Pakistan, which were supplied to him by PW10 SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 13 of  72 vide   letter   dated   12.05.2012   and   this   letter,   alongwith   the documents supplied, is Ex. PW23/A­colly (D­19) on record.    

12. Efforts were also made to secure the presence of A­2   through   summons   Ex.   PW12/D­colly,   Ex.   PW12/E­colly and Ex. PW12/F­colly etc issued U/s 108 of the Customs Act for recording of her statement under the said provisions, but her   presence   could   not   be   secured   by   the   officials   of   DRI, Lucknow  and the said accused remained absconding.   One show cause notice Ex. PW12/H­colly U/s 124 of the Customs Act for initiating adjudication proceedings against her was also issued and further an information about the seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­from her house was also given by the officials of DRI, Lucknow to the SSP, Aligarh, UP for taking cognizance of the   relevant   offences   under   the   IPC.     This   resulted   into registration the above case vide FIR No. 95/12 of PS Kotwali, Aligarh, UP.  A copy of the expert opinion Ex. PW21/B given in respect of the recovered FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ from the house of A­2 was also marked to PW12 Sh. Karunesh Srivastava by his   senior   officers   and   on   the   basis   thereof,   PW12   had prepared   one   seizure   memo   dated   05.06.2012   Ex.   PW12/C (RUD­6 in the file of PS Aligarh) and copy thereof was also got delivered at the house of A­2 and further sent to SSP, Aligarh and   DRI,   Delhi.     On   receiving   the   above   document   and information regarding this seizure of Rs. 60,000/­, PW22 Ct. Vijay  Singh   of  PS   Kotwali  had  written  the   particulars   of  the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 14 of  72 above   seizure   memo   Ex.   PW12/C   in   the   FIR   Ex.   PW22/A registered  in  their  PS   and   he   also  made  one  GD  entry  Ex. PW22/B   regarding   registration   of   the   said   FIR   (these documents   are   also   available   in   above   file   of   PS   Kotwali). Subsequently, the case property of this case, i.e. seized FICN of  Rs.  60,000/­   and  some  documents  pertaining  to  the  said seizure   were   also   handed   over   by   PW14   to   PW25   SSI Bhupender   Kumar   Sharma   of   PS   Kotwali   vide   letter   dated 28.12.2012 Ex. PW12/B (it should have been exhibited as Ex. PW14/B and another copy thereof is also Ex. PW25/D1 and available in the case file of PS Aligarh).

13. It is further alleged that PW14 had also conveyed the   information   about   the   above   seizure   of   FICN   worth   Rs. 60,000/­ from the house of A­2 to the CBI, New Delhi vide his letter   Ex.   PW12/A   dated   14.05.2012   (D­20)   (it   should   have been   exhibited   as   Ex.   PW14/A)   and   he   further   enclosed   a copy   of   the   panchnama   Ex.   PW12/A­colly   (D­21)   dated 27.03.2012  alongwith  the  said  letter  as  a  case  was  already registered by the CBI in connection with the earlier seizure of FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ in Delhi.   During investigation of the case,   the   IO/PW20   of   CBI   had   also   collected   certain information and documents Mark PW10/1 and Mark PW10/2 in respect of alleged visit of A­1 to Pakistan from the office of FRRO,   Attari   Border,   Amritsar   and   these   documents   were furnished to him vide letter Ex. PW10/A dated 07.06.2012 of SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 15 of  72 Sh. Raj Kumar, FRRO.  The IO/PW20 also collected a certified copy of the above GD entry made at PS Kotwali regarding the seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ vide letter Ex. PW20/A (D­18) dated 17.04.2012 during the investigation.  

  

14. As   already   stated   above,   A­2   remained absconding   initially   and   she   was   taken   into   custody   by   the court only on 30.08.2012 when she surrendered in the court of Ld CMM, Delhi in this case.  Subsequently, she got bail in this case and also surrendered before the court concerned of PS Kotwali,   Aligarh   on   12.04.2013   and   her   one   statement   in District   Jail,   Aligarh   is   also   being   alleged   to   have   been recorded by PW25 SSI Bhupender Kumar Sharma.   The site plan   Ex.   PW24/D   was   prepared   and   the   case   diaries   Ex. PW24/A to Ex. PW24/C written by the initial IO of the above case of PS Kotwali, Aligarh, i.e. PW24 SSI Ramesh Chander Sharma, and the case diaries Ex. PW25/A to Ex. PW25/M and Ex. PW25/O and request Ex. PW25/Q are also being alleged to have been written or made by the subsequent IO/PW25 Sh. Bhupender Kumar Sharma in connection with the said case, who ultimately prepared the chargesheet Ex. PW25/N of the said case and filed it in the court concerned.  The chargesheet Ex. PW20/B of the present case was filed prior to that by the IO/PW20   Inspector   Sanjay   Sehgal   after   collecting   all   the relevant documents and recording the statements of witnesses etc.   SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 16 of  72

15. The   chargesheet   of   the   present   case   for commission of the above said offences was filed in the court of Ld   Duty   MM   concerned   on   20.06.2012,   when   A­2   was   still absconding.     Cognizance   of   the   offences   alleged   in   the chargesheet was taken on 03.07.2012 and as stated above, A­ 2 surrendered in the court and was taken into custody by the Ld   CMM   on   30.08.2012.     Since   the   offence   U/s   489C   was exclusively   triable   by   a   Court   of   Sessions,   the   case   was committed to the Court of Sessions on 13.09.2012.  A charge for commission of the offence punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 489B IPC and 489C IPC against both the accused and also charges for the substantive offences punishable U/s 489B IPC and 489C IPC against A­1 and for the substantive offence   punishable   U/s   489C   IPC   only   against   A­2   were framed by this court on 16.10.2012.  

16. It is also necessary to mention here that one Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 665/2013 was subsequently filed on behalf of A­2 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of the case registered against her at PS Kotwali, Aligarh, UP on the ground that she had  already been prosecuted  for the same offence   in   the   present   case   filed   by   the   CBI,   which   was pending   at   Delhi   as   SC   No.   06/14.     However,   the   above petition   of   the   accused   was   dismissed   by   the   Hon'ble   High Court vide its order dated 29.04.2013 with observations that the allegations made against the said accused, i. e. A­2, in the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 17 of  72 chargesheet filed against her by the CBI in Delhi are not of possession of the FICN, but are only of conspiring with A­1.  It was   also   observed   by   the   Hon'ble   Delhi   High   Court   in   its above   order   that   since   FICN   valuing   Rs.   60,000/­   were recovered from the house of A­2 in Aligarh, UP, there was an independent cause of action for registration of another FIR at Aligarh,   UP   against   her   and   hence,   both   the   cases   could proceed.

17. Being   aggrieved   by   the   above   order   dated 29.04.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court, A­2 had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 43/2014 and it was disposed   of   vide   order   dated   06.01.2014   and   without commenting upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and further without making any observations on the issue   of   registration   of   two   FIRs   against   A­2   for   the   same offences,   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   had   only   directed   the transfer   of   the   above   case   at   Aligarh,   UP   to   Delhi. Subsequently, the case file of the above said case at Aligarh was also received in the court of Ld CMM, Delhi and it was sent for trial alongwith the present case, i.e. 06/14, and the said case came to be registered as SC No. 08/14.

18. However, it is also necessary to mention here that during the course of hearings on the point of charges in the said case SC No. 08/14, it was observed by this court that the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 18 of  72 charges which have been framed against A­2 in the present case SC No. 06/14 were not only in respect of the offence of criminal   conspiracy   for   bringing,   trafficking   or   importing   the above FICN from Pakistan to India, as made punishable by Section 120B IPC r/w Sections 489B IPC and 489C IPC, but a substantive   charge   for   possession   in   respect   of   recovery   of FICN valuing Rs. 60,000/­ from her house at Aligarh U/s 489C was   also   already   framed   against   the   said   accused   and   it appeared   to   the   court   that   neither   Ld   defence   counsel representing   A­2   nor   Ld   PP   representing   the   State   in   the above Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 665/13 had brought the true facts of the case to the knowledge of the Hon'ble High Court.  Since A­2   could   not   have   been   prosecuted   or   punished   twice   for commission   of   the   same   offence   due   to   the   constitutional provisions,   this   court   was   of   the   considered   opinion   that neither the substantive charge for the offence punishable U/s 489B IPC for trafficking in the above FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ from Pakistan to India nor U/s 489C IPC relating to possession of the   said   FICN   could   have   been   framed   against   A­2   by   the court in the above other case SC No. 08/14 and hence, the above accused was discharged by this court in the said case. 

19. The   prosecution   in   support   of   its   case   has examined on record total 26 witnesses and their names and purpose of examination is being stated herein below:­ SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 19 of  72

20. PW1 Sh. Jainender Singh Kandhari  is the then Assistant Director of DRI posted at their headquarters in Delhi at the relevant time.   He stated that he made one complaint dated   21.03.2012   to   SP,   CBI,   EOW­II   regarding   the   above seizure   of   FICN   of   Rs.   2,36,000/­   and   has   proved   the   said complaint as Ex. PW1/A (D­2).  He further stated that vide his letter dated 30.03.2012 Ex. PW1/B (D­3), he also forwarded some   documents   in   connection   with   this   case   to   the   CBI subsequently.  

21. PW2   Sh.   Deepak   Khatri,  PW4   Sh.   A.   C. Sharma,  PW11   Sh.   Ajay   Bhasin,   all   Intelligence   Officers (IOs) of DRI and  PW9 Ms. Kanwal Kanta Malhotra, Sr. Tax Assistant   (STA),   DRI   are   all   members   of   the   above   raiding team  of   DRI,  which  had  apprehended  the   accused  Mehrool Nisha (A­1) from platform no. 1 of ODRS and effected seizure of   the   above   FICN   valuing   Rs.   2,36,000/­,   as   already discussed above.   They all have deposed in detail regarding the above said search and seizure proceedings and also about preparation   of   relevant   documents   pertaining   to   the   same. They all have also identified the above accused and the above said case property.  However, it is necessary to mention here that PW11 Sh. Ajay Bhasin could not be cross examined on behalf of the accused persons despite giving opportunity for the same. 

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 20 of  72

22. PW3 Sh. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee was posted as Sr. Intelligence Officer (SIO) in the above office DRI in Delhi at the   relevant   time   and   he   had   issued   summons   Ex.   PW4/A (copy thereof is D­6)  U/s 108 of the Customs Act in the name of   the   above   accused   and   recorded   statement   Ex.   PW4/B (copy thereof is D­7) of the said accused, which was reduced into writing by Ms. Poonam Aggarwal, STA, DRI.  He had also attested photocopies of the documents, i.e. panchnama dated 19­20.03.2012   and   its   annexures,   copies   of   documents recovered   from   possession   of   the   above   accused,   copy   of notice U/s 102 of the Customs Act, copies of summons U/s 108   of   the   said   Act   and   statement   tendered   by   the   said accused in response to the above summons etc, which were sent to CBI vide letter Ex. PW1/B by PW1, as stated above, and these photocopies are Ex. PW3/A­ colly on record (D­4 to D­12).  He had also subsequently sent the original documents of this case to CBI vide his letter Ex. PW3/B dated 09.04.2014, i.e. subsequent to the filing of chargesheet of this case, which were placed on record of this court by the CBI on 18.07.2014 as copies thereof were already filed with the chargesheet and relied upon by them.  He had also sent intimation about arrest of above accused to her husband vide telegram Ex. PW4/F and postal receipt Ex. PW3/C.

23. PW5 Sh. R. Roy was also posted as SIO with the DRI, Delhi at the relevant time and he had also attested copies SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 21 of  72 of some documents Ex. PW5/B (D­15) which were sent to CBI vide his letter dated 19.04.2014 Ex. PW5/A (D­13) and these documents   included   a   copy   of   the   authorization   letter   Ex. PW4/G (D­14) for deposit of above FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ with CNP, Nashik,  copy of report dated 12.04.2012 Ex. PW5/B (D­

15) of CNP, Nashik in  respect of  the above  FICN and also copy of one letter dated 03.04.2012 of DRI, Lucknow (copy thereof is D­16) addressed to DRI, Delhi in respect of seizure of   FICN   of   Rs.   60,000/­   effected   from   the   house   of   A­2   at Aligarh.

24. PW6   Ms.   Poonam   Aggarwal,   STA,   DRI,   Delhi had reduced into writing the above statement Ex. PW4/B (D­7) of A­1 U/s 108 of the Customs Act tendered before PW3 Sh. B.   K.   Banerjee,   as   stated   above.     She   has   stated   that   she reduced   it   at   request   of   accused   only   as   the   accused   was illiterate. 

25. PW7 Sh. Suraj Bhan was posted as peon in the office   of   Commissioner,   Audit   Department,   Government   of India at ITO and he is one of the two independent witnesses joined in the above raid resulting into apprehension of accused Mehrool Nisha and seizure of the above FICN amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/­ from her possession.   His depositions will be discussed and appreciated later on.

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 22 of  72

26. PW8 Sh. Partha Pranov Bose  is the concerned expert of CNP, Nashik, Maharashtra and he has proved his report Ex. PW4/J dated 12.04.2012 (copy of this report is also Ex. PW5/B and D­15), vide which he had opined the above FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ as counterfeit and not genuine notes.  

27. PW10   Sh.   Manpreet   Singh  is   an   official   of   the Bureau   of   Immigration,   Amritsar   and   he   has   identified   the signatures of his senior officer Sh. Raj Kumar posted as FRRO in the said office at the relevant time on one letter Ex. PW10/A dated   07.06.2012   addressed   to   the   CBI,   vide   which   a computer print out Mark PW10/1 regarding arrival of accused Arastoon Begum (A­2) from Pakistan in India and a copy of her arrival card Mark PW10/2, were sent to the CBI (all these documents are part of D­22).

28. PW12 Sh. Karunesh Srivastava  was posted as IO, DRI, Lucknow at the relevant time.   He had headed   the raiding team which searched the above said residence of A­2 in   Aligarh,   U.P.   on   27.03.2012,   one   being   authorized   by   a search   warrant   dated   26.03.2012   issued   by   his   Deputy Director   Sh.   Dinesh   Bouddh,   and   recovered   one   carton   of cigarette box having 10 packets of 20 cigarettes each and the above FICN valuing Rs. 60,000/­ (1000 X 14 and 500 X 92) concealed   in  cigarettes   contained  in   the  above   packets.   He identified   the   said   case   property   as   well   as   his   signatures SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 23 of  72 appearing   on   all   the   relevant   documents   prepared   in connection   with   the   above   search   and   further   identified   the signatures   of   some   of   his   senior   officers   on   few   other documents.

29. PW13 Sh. Ashutosh Dixit  is also an IO of DRI, Lucknow and was part of the above raiding team led by PW12 which   conducted   search   of   the   above   house   of   A­2   and recovered   the   above   FICN   of   Rs.   60,000/­.     He   has   also deposed   in   detail   about   the   said   seizure   and   identified   the case   property   as   well   as   his   signatures   on   the   relevant documents. 

30. PW14 Sh. Dinesh Bouddh is the Deputy Director of DRI, Lucknow at the relevant time and on receiving inputs dated   22.03.2012   from   DRI,   Delhi   regarding   the   seizure   of FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ conducted at Delhi, he had issued  the above search warrant dated 26.03.2012 in favour of PW12 for search of the above house of A­2 at Aligarh, which resulted into seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ from the said premises. He   had   also   subsequently   conveyed   information   about   the above   seizure   to   CBI,   New   Delhi   vide   his   letter   dated 14.05.2012 Ex. PW12/A (D­20), alongwith copy of panchnama pertaining   to   the   above   FICN   Mark   PW12/1­colly.     Vide another   letter  dated   28.12.2012   Ex.  PW12/B  (RUD­5)   (copy thereof is also part of PW12/1 colly), he had also subsequently SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 24 of  72 handed   over   one   sealed   envelope   of   above   FICN   of   Rs. 60,000/­, alongwith photocopy of one show cause notice Mark PW12/2 colly issued by him in the name of A­2, to one Sub Inspector of PS Kotwali, Aligarh, UP, where one case FIR No. 203/12   U/s   489B/489C   IPC   already   stood   registered   with regard to seizure of the said FICN (The documents exhibited as   Ex.   PW12/A   and   Ex.   PW12/B   during   statement   of   this witness   inadvertently   should   have   been   exhibited   as   Ex. PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B respectively).

31. PW15 Smt. Sultana is the daughter­in­law of A­2 and she was one of the alleged witnesses of seizure of the above   FICN   of   Rs.   60,000/­   from   the   house   of   the   said accused. However, she has turned hostile on this aspect and has only identified her thumb impressions on the panchnama Ex. PW12/A (RUD­1) and the envelope Ex. PW12/L in which the above FICN were sealed, which she claims were forcibly taken on the said documents.  

32. PW16 Sh. Tola Pehalwan and PW17 Sh. Hasim are both the neighbours A­2  and also the alleged witnesses of above seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­. However, PW16 has only   stated   that   on   being   called   by   some   officials   in   plain clothes, who arrived at the house of above accused, he had put his signatures on few papers, but no documents containing his alleged signatures were shown to him in the court nor he SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 25 of  72 has   claimed   himself   to   be   a   witness   of   the   above   seizure. Even PW17 has denied the recovery of the above FICN in his presence, though he admitted to have put his signatures on some   documents,   including   the   above   panchnama   Ex. PW12/A.

33. PW18   Sh.   Ajaib   Singh  was   the   ASP   of   the concerned unit of CBI, New Delhi at the relevant time and he has identified his signatures on the copy of FIR Ex. PW18/A (D­1) of this case and has further stated that investigation of the case was entrusted to Sh. Sanjay Sehgal, Inspector.

34. PW19 Sh. Anis  was working as a carpenter on the third floor portion of the above house of A­2 at the relevant time of search. As per him, he was called by some officials and asked to bring some instrument for breaking open the lock of ground floor portion of the said house and accordingly, he brought one wasooli (big hammer), with the help of which the said lock was broken by one of the officials.   He also stated that he was made to forcibly sign on some documents by the said   officials,   which   included   the   above   panchnama   Ex. PW12/A.     He   has   specifically   denied   seizure   of   the   above FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ in his presence.  

35. PW20 Inspector Sanjay Sehgal is the initial IO of this case and he was entrusted with investigation of the case SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 26 of  72 and also handed over a copy of the FIR Ex. PW18/A (D­1) on 21.03.2012.   During the course of investigation, he collected documents   in   terms   of   the   letters   dated   30.03.2012   and 19.04.2012   Ex.   PW1/B   (D­3)   and   Ex.   PW5/A   (D­13),   which documents were supplied to them by the concerned officers of DRI, i.e. PW3 and PW5, and pertained to seizure of the above FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ from the house of A­1.   He also collected some record pertaining to movement of A­2 in terms of   the   letter   Ex.   PW10/A   (D­22)   dated   07.06.2012   from   the office of FRRO, Amritsar, copy of above DD of PS Kotwali vide letter Ex. PW20/A (D­18) and further received the documents sent by PW14 Sh. Dinesh Bouddh of DRI, Lucknow.  He also recorded statements of witnesses subsequently and compared the above FICN involved in both the above seizures and found that   the   same   originated   from   one   place   as   their   serial numbers   were   found   matching.     He   also   then   prepared   the chargesheet Ex. PW20/B and filed it in the court.

 36. PW21   Sh.   J.   K.   Chaudhary  is   the   Assistant Works Manager of CNP, Nashik and he received the parcel containing the above FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ in intact condition vide acknowledgement Ex. PW21/A dated 28.05.2012 (RUD­

5).   After examining the above FICN, he had given his report Ex. PW21/B dated 29.05.2012 (RUD­5) to the CBI and opined the said FICN to be fake and counterfeit for the reasons stated in the said report.  He also identified the above FICN.

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 27 of  72

37. PW22  Ct.   Vijay   Singh  of   PS   Kotwali   had registered the FIR Ex. PW22/A and one GD entry number 29 Ex. PW22/B on 29.06.2012 at PS Kotwali, in respect of the above seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ effected on 05.06.2012.

38. PW23   Sh.   Naresh   Indora,   Inspector,   CBI,   New Delhi   had   collected   certain   information/documents   from   the office   of   FRRO,   Amritsar,   alongwith   the   letter   dated 12.05.2012, in respect of arrival of A­1 from Pakistan in India, which were supplied to him by PW10 Sh. Manpreet Singh, and the said information, alongwith the above letter furnishing the same, are Ex. PW23/A colly (D­19) on record. 

39. PW24   Sh.   Ramesh   Chander   Sharma  was posted as SSI at PS Kotwali, Aligarh at the relevant time and he has also deposed about registration of the above case at PS Kotwali in respect of seizure of above FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ vide FIR Ex. PW22/A on his directions, on receipt of a faxed copy of the seizure memo Ex. PW12/C (RUD­6) pertaining to the same.  He also proved some case diaries as Ex. PW24/A to   Ex.   PW24/D,   which   he   wrote   in   connection   with investigation of the said case. 

40. PW25 Inspector Bhupender Kumar Sharma  is also the SSI of the above PS Kotwali and he was handed over investigation of the said case on 06.10.2012 and he has also SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 28 of  72 proved the case diaries Ex. PW25/A to Ex. PW25/O written by him   in   connection   with   the   said   case   and   further   exhibited some   other   documents.     However,   the   depositions   of   these two witnesses are not of much importance as the seizure of the   above   FICN   amounting   to   Rs.   60,000/­   was   already effected by the DRI and the relevant documents pertaining to the said seizure prepared by the DRI officers.   This witness also claims to have visited the offices of DRI at Lucknow and New Delhi subsequently in connection with the above seizures and   was   told   that   since   the   seizure   at   Aligarh   was   an independent seizure, the case registered at Aligarh shall also proceed.     He   also   deposed   that   A­2   initially   remained absconding during the investigation till she surrendered in the court on 12.04.2013 and thereafter, he prepared  chargesheet in   the   said   case   and   filed   it   in   the   court   at   Aligarh   on 18.04.2013.

41. PW26 Inspector Satyendra Singh was the SHO of PS Kotwali when the above seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ was effected from the house of A­2.  He subsequently claims himself to be a witness of the said seizure, on being asked to join the said proceedings by CO, City, Aligarh.   He deposes specifically about the above recovery of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­, in denominations of Rs. 1000 X 14 and 500 X 92, which were found   concealed   in   the   cigarettes   of   above   20   packets contained in the above carton, which was recovered from the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 29 of  72 room of above accused.  He had also pointed out the place of above recovery to the IO of the said case vide site plan Ex. PW24/D dated 09.07.2012 (wrongly typed as Ex. PW21/D in statement of the witness).

 

42. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was denied by them either as wrong or beyond their   knowledge.     Both   the   accused   have   not   denied   their relation  with  each  other  and  also their visit to  Pakistan  and their return to Delhi/India by Samjhauta Express arriving at the ODRS in the night of 19­20.03.2012.   A­1 has even admitted that she was apprehended from the ODRS by some officials in plain   clothes   and   her   being   taken   away   to   some   office   by those officials, alongwith her baggage, but she claims that she was   apprehended   at   around   9:00   AM   on   20.03.2012. However, she has specifically denied that either she or her co­ accused brought any cigarette packets or cartons or the FICN concealed   therein   from   Pakistan   or   that   the   same   were recovered   from   her   baggage   or   possession.     She   has   also specifically denied the making of any statement before those officials   and   has  rather   claimed   that   her   thumb   impressions were   forcibly   taken   by   those   officials   on   many   documents, without disclosing the contents thereof, and has also claimed that those officials further took away her passport and some SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 30 of  72 other documents.  

43. Even   A­2   specifically   denied   bringing   of   any cigarette packets or cartons and the concealed FICN therein from Pakistan.  She further denied for want of knowledge the details of the search proceedings conducted by some officials at   her   house   in   Aligarh,   but   her   denial   of   FICN   worth   Rs. 60,000/­ from the cigarette carton allegedly found in her house is specific and it is also her claim that since she did not bring in any   such   cigarette   cartons   or   FICN   concealed   therein   from Pakistan, there was no question of recovery thereof from her room   or   house,   the   locks   of   which   were   broken   by   those officials   in   her   absence.     She   has   further   denied   her absconding from the proceedings and it is her contention that after a week or so of their arrival back in India, she left the house for a 'jamaat' (religious pilgrimage) or was living at the house   of   some   relative   and   in   her   absence,   some   police officials broke open the lock of her house and took away Rs. 60,000/­ in cash, her election card and the election card of his son, which articles were lying there in her house/room.  They both   have   also   specifically   denied   knowing   any   Pappu   in Pakistan   and   have   further   claimed   that   the   entire   case   and story   of   prosecution   is   false   and   they   have   been   falsely implicated in this case by the DRI as well as the CBI officials. However, none of them has chosen to lead any evidence in her defence. 

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 31 of  72

44. I   have   heard   the   arguments   advanced   by   Sh. Harsh Mohan Singh, Ld PP for CBI and Sh. Shaad Anwar, Ld counsel for both the accused.   The written submissions filed on   behalf   of   accused   and   the   case   record   have   also   been perused.  

45. The evidence led on record and the different legs of its case, which the prosecution is bound to prove against the   accused   persons   beyond   reasonable   doubts,   can   be broadly discussed and appreciated under the following heads:­ VISIT OF ACCUSED PERSONS TO PAKISTAN AND THEIR APPREHENSION FROM ODRS ON RETURN

46. As   per   the   prosecution   case,   both   the   accused visited Pakistan around two months prior to their return and apprehension   of   A­1   Mehrool   Nisha   from   ODRS   with   FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­, as discussed above, and their above visit to Pakistan was in furtherance of a well planned criminal conspiracy entered into between the above two accused and Pappu of Lahore, Pakistan for the purposes of illegally bringing or trafficking in FICN from Pakistan to India.   Apart from the alleged voluntary statement Ex. PW4/B (D­7) tendered by A­1 in response to the summons Ex. PW4/A (D­6) issued to her, the   testimonies   of   PW10   &   PW23   and   the   documents   Ex. PW10/A, Mark PW10/1 & Mark PW10/2 and Ex. PW23/A­colly SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 32 of  72 being referred to and relied upon by the prosecution in this regard.  

47. As stated above, PW23 Sh. Naresh Indora of CBI is the person who visited the office of FRRO, Attari Border, Amritsar and collected certain documents with regard to the alleged visit of A­1 to Pakistan from the said office.  As per the depositions   made   by   him,   he   met   Sh.   Manpreet   Singh, AFRRO   and   the   above   official   provided   to   him   a   copy   of computer print out of the details of departure and arrival of A­1 from the data stored in their system and also a copy of the arrival   card   of   the   said   accused   in   India   from   Pakistan   and these   documents   were   supplied   vide   the   letter   dated 12.05.2012.   The said letter, alongwith the above documents supplied, have also been exhibited as Ex. PW23/A­colly (D­19) on record.  However, it is observed that the above documents brought in the evidence by the prosecution cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons as the same have not been   admitted   in   or   proved   as   per   the   provisions   of   the Evidence Act.  This witness was never in a position to identify the   signatures   of   the   above   official   Sh.   Manpreet   Singh   of FRRO, Amritsar on the said letter and though Sh. Manpreet Singh   was   also   examined   on   record   by   the   prosecution   as PW10, but the above letter was not even shown or put to him for identification of his signatures thereon.  Even the computer print out and copy of arrival card of the passenger, i.e. A­1, SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 33 of  72 supplied   to   PW23   vide   the   above   letter   cannot   be   read   in evidence as the computer certificate is not accompanied with any certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act and original of the arrival card of the above accused was also not summoned or produced during the course of evidence.  It is not a document of   which   certified   copy   was   admissible   in   evidence   and moreover, the copy of the said arrival card brought in evidence is neither a certified copy nor the attestation appearing thereon could have been proved by this witness.   Hence, the details contained in the above computer print out and arrival card of A­1 regarding her visit to Pakistan or her arrival back to India cannot   be   considered   in   evidence.     In   the   absence   of   the above documentary evidence, even the oral depositions made by PW23 in this regard cannot be given any weight.  Further, no specimen thumb impressions of A­1 were also taken for the purposes of comparison with the thumb impression appearing on the above arrival card.

48. Likewise,   the   oral   as   well   as   documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution qua the visit and   arrival   back   of   A­2   Hajjan   Arastoon   is   also   either inadmissible   in   or   has   remained   unproved   in   the   evidence. PW10   Sh.   Manpreet   Singh   has   though   identified   the signatures of his senior officer Sh. Raj Kumar in attestations appearing on one letter dated 07.06.2012 supplying a copy of the computer screen print out Mark PW10/1 and a copy of the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 34 of  72 arrival   card   Mark   PW10/2   (these   documents   are   D­22   on record),   and   also   on   the   documents   Mark   PW10/1   &   Mark PW10/2,   but   even   this   evidence   can   only   be   termed   as secondary evidence, which is not admissible in evidence as there is no explanation from prosecution for non production of the   primary  evidence  in  the  form  of  examination  of  Sh.  Raj Kumar   FRRO   on   record   and   the   conditions   required   for leading   secondary   evidence   of   the   contents   of   the   above arrival   card   have   not   been   satisfied.     Even   otherwise,   the above   computer   print   out   Mark   PW10/1   and   copy   of   arrival card Mark PW10/2 are not admissible in evidence for the other reasons as already discussed above in respect of the similar documents   qua   A­1.     Hence,   the   oral   and   documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to   prove   that   both   the   accused   visited   Pakistan   or   returned back by Samjhauta Express on 20.03.2012, as alleged.  

49. However,   even   then   the   above   facts   stand   duly admitted   on   record   and   have   not   been   challenged   by   the accused persons either during the course of suggestions given to   the   prosecution   witnesses   or   in   their   own   statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. as in their above said statements, they both have specifically admitted that they visited Pakistan and returned back to India and then to Delhi  by Samjhauta Express,   which   arrived   at   ODRS   during   the   night   of   19­ 20.03.2012.    A­1  has even  admitted  her  apprehension  from SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 35 of  72 the   waiting   hall   of   platform   no.   1,   ODRS,   though   she   is disputing the timing of her apprehension, the seizure of FICN amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/­ from her possession and also the other proceedings done in respect of the same.  It is now well settled that the recording of statement of an accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C.   is   not   a   formality   and   the   answers   given   by   the accused in response to the questions put to him have got a practical utility and the same can even be considered against an   accused,   though   he   cannot   solely   be   held   guilty   and convicted   on   its   basis.     Therefore,   even   in   the   absence   of proof of the above facts specifically by the prosecution, their case does not suffer on this ground.  

EVIDENCE ABOUT SEIZURE OF FICN WORTH RS.

2,36,000/­ FROM POSSESSION OF A­1

50. As discussed above, the recovery of FICN valuing Rs.   2,36,000/­   was   allegedly   effected   from   the   cigarette cartons   found   in   possession   of   A­1   at   the   time   of   her apprehension from ODRS by members of the raiding team of DRI and the above accused was apprehended and recovery effected in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sh.   Harish   Kumar   and   Sh.   Suraj   Bhan,   who   both   are   also shown   to   have   witnessed   the   above   notice   U/s   102   of   the Customs   Act   Ex.   PW2/A,   panchnama   Ex.   PW2/B   and documents   Ex.   PW2/C   to   Ex.   PW2/F   etc,   which   were recovered from the possession of A­1.  Though, the above Sh. SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 36 of  72 Suraj Bhan has been examined by the prosecution on record as PW7, but it is observed that the other witness namely Sh. Harish   Kumar   is   not   even   cited   in   the   list   of   prosecution witnesses filed with the chargesheet of the present case, what to say of examining him in this court.  There is no justification from   the   side   of   prosecution   as   to   what   made   or   prompted them to withheld the above material witness of their case from this   court   and   this   lapse   of   prosecution   assumes   more significance when it is viewed in light of the submission which has   been   made   by   Ld   defence   counsel   that   the   possibility cannot be ruled out that the above witness never existed or that he is a fake person introduced in the story of prosecution as none of the IOs had even collected or placed on record any document as proof of identity of the said witness, what to say of   his   actual   participation   in   proceedings   of   this   case. Because of the above lapse of prosecution also, the accused is certainly entitled to get a benefit in this prosecution.  

51. It   is   also   observed   that   even   the   other independent witness allegedly joined in the prosecution case, i.e. PW7 Sh. Suraj Bhan, has not supported their case at all and has rather deposed in a manner which destroys the very roots of the prosecution story regarding his participation in the raiding team and conduction of the panchnama proceedings. For the sake of convenience, the entire depositions made by this   witness   during   his   examination­in­chief   are   being SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 37 of  72 reproduced herein below:­ "In the year 2012, I was working as a peon in the office of Commissioner, Audit Department, Central Govt. of India and my office was at ITO.  

I do not remember the month, but on a day around   20th  day   of   a   month   in   the   above   year,   I   was present   in   my  office   during   my  office   hours,   when   one peon named Ramesh posted in the DRI office, who was already known to me, came to me and took me to their office while saying that one Ammaji (old lady) had been apprehended     in   some   case   and   sitting   in   their   office. Accordingly, when I had gone to the office of DRI, which was located on the upper floor of our office, I had found one old lady sitting there.  Some parcels were also being prepared by the DRI officers on a separate table.  I do not know   in   what   case   the   above   lady   was   involved   nor anything   was   recovered   from   her   in   my   presence. However, my signatures were taken at various places by the DRI officers.   I can identify the above old lady and also my signatures.

On being asked the witness has pointed out and   correctly     identified   the   accused   Mehrool   Nisha, present in the court.  

At this stage, Ld Sr. PP for CBI has shown to the witness the   panchnama   already   Ex.   PW2/B   and   the   witness identifies   his   signatures   at   point   C   on   the   above panchnama and on its annexure.   The witness has also been   shown   four   documents   already   Ex.   PW2/C,   Ex. PW2/D, Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F and he also identifies his signatures on these documents at point C."  

52. It is clear from the above depositions made by this material   witness   of   the   prosecution   story   that   he   had   not accompanied   the   raiding   team   of   DRI   which   had   allegedly apprehended A­1 from ODRS with the above cigarette cartons and   he   even   does   not   claim   recovery   of   the   above   FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ from the cigarettes found in the above cartons in his presence.   He has simply stated that on being called by the above peon Ramesh of DRI, he visited the DRI office on that day and had seen an old lady sitting there and SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 38 of  72 some   parcels   being   prepared   by   the   DRI   officials   on   a separate table.   Though, he went to identify A­1 as the said lady, but he has also stated in clear and specific terms that he does not know as to in what case the above lady was involved nor anything was recovered from her in his presence, further though he has identified his signatures on some documents shown to him by Ld PP for CBI.  It is strange that no request was   made   by   Ld   PP   for   CBI   at   the   relevant   time   to   cross­ examine this witness after getting him declared hostile or to put   their   case   to   him   and   this   failure   of   Ld   PP   amounts   to acceptance of the above version of incident which has been given by this witness.   The depositions made by this witness not   only   show   his   non   participation   in   the   panchnama proceedings, but the same also seriously affect the credibility of   other   prosecution   witnesses   and   render   the   documents prepared in relation to the above seizure, i.e. the notice Ex. PW2/A and the panchnama Ex. PW2/B etc, to be unworthy of acceptance, being fake and fabricated documents.  

53. Further,   it   is   well   settled   that   just   like   the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the provisions of Section   102   of   the   Customs   Act   are   also   very   important provisions and a safeguard inserted in the above statute by the   legislature   to   protect   the   constitutional   rights   of   an individual   that   his   'person'   will   not   be   violated   without reasonable grounds and without following the due process of SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 39 of  72 law.  It is for this reason that Section 102 of the Customs Act is made to incorporate the provision that whenever any officer of customs is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 100 or Section 101 of the Act, the officer of customs shall if such person so requires, take him without unnecessary delay   to   the   nearest   Gazetted   Officer   of   customs   or   a Magistrate and if such a request is made by the concerned person, then the said person can only be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, as the case may be, and a Custom   Officer   has   even   been   authorized   to   detain   such   a person until he is searched before such an officer.  However, it is also now well settled that compliance of provisions of the above Section may not be necessary in case the incriminating article or substance has not been actually recovered from the 'person'   of   an   individual   and   the   same   has   been   recovered from his baggage or suitcase etc.   Since in the present case also,   the   seizure   of   FICN   valuing   Rs.   2,36,000/­   was   not effected from the 'person' of A­1 but it was effected from the baggage she was allegedly carrying, technically speaking, a notice U/s 102 of the Customs Act was not even required to be given to her.  However, once the above notice Ex. PW2/A (D­

5)   has   been   served   upon   the   accused,   it   also   becomes necessary   for   this   court   to   consider   if   the   said   notice   was actually   given   to   the   accused   at   the   relevant   time   of   her apprehension   and   before   the   search   of   her   'person'   or baggage, as has been claimed by the prosecution, or it is a SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 40 of  72 document   which   was   fabricated   by   the   DRI   officials subsequently.  

54. As   already   discussed   above,   the   depositions made by PW7 Sh. Suraj Bhan make clear dents in credibility of the prosecution story and tend to show that this document did not  come  in existence at  the  time  when it purports to  have been   brought   into   existence   by   the   prosecution   and   it   was created or fabricated subsequently in the office of DRI.  As per the case of prosecution and the depositions made by all official members of the DRI team, the notice Ex. PW2/A was given to A­1   at   the   premises   of   ODRS   itself   when   she   was apprehended   alongwith   her   above   said   baggage.     The provisions   of   Section   102   of   the   Customs   Act   require   the conduction of search of a suspect before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate if the suspect opts for the same.   Though, the case   of   prosecution   is   that   A­1   did   not   opt   for   her   search before any of the above said officers and rather offered her personal search to be conducted by any female officer of DRI and the search of her baggage by any other officer of DRI, but this reply of accused given on the above notice itself appears to   the   court   to   be   a   fake   and   fabricated   reply.     Being   an illiterate   old   lady   of   around   65   years   of   age,   she   was   not expected to be conversant with the legal provisions that her personal search could have been conducted only by a female official and the search of her baggage by any other official of SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 41 of  72 DRI,   male   or   female,   and   it   appears   that   this   reply   of   the accused has been written on the notice by the DRI officials on their own.  

55. Again,   a   bare   perusal   of   the   above   notice   Ex. PW2/A itself shows that the said reply has not been written on the notice in its natural flow or tone and rather it appears to have been subsequently written and adjusted in the space left blank on the said notice and thumb impression of accused at point E on the said reply appears to have been taken prior to writing of the said reply, which was allegedly written thereon in the handwriting of PW9.  Moreover, when Gazetted Officers of railways were very much available at the premises of ODRS itself, as also admitted specifically by some of the PWs, the DRI officials  could  have at  least  secured  the  presence  of a Gazetted   Officer   of   railways   at   the   time   of   raid   and apprehension   of   A­1   from   ODRS   to   give   credence   to   their case.   However, what to say of doing the same, they did not even make any attempt to join any other official of the railways in   the   said   search,   though   under   the   pretext   that   two independent   witnesses   were   already   accompanying   them. Again, as also admitted by some of the official witnesses, they did not even make any attempt at any subsequent stage to seek   or   secure   the   CCTV   footage   of   the   above   platform   to corroborate their claim  of having apprehended  A­1  from the above said railway station.  The fact that A­1 was illiterate and SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 42 of  72 was  not  conversant  with  the  Hindi  or   English language  and even the independent witness/PW7 Sh. Suraj Bhan was not conversant   with   the   English   language   also   affects   the credibility of the documents prepared in connection with the above seizure in English language.  

56. Besides the  above, there are also various other material   contradictions,   inconsistencies   and   discrepancies   in the prosecution story and evidence with regard to seizure of the above FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ from the possession of A­1, which also render the entire evidence to be unworthy of acceptance.     From   the   evidence   led   on   record   by   the prosecution, it is not clear as to who had actually received the above   secret   information   as   though   the   raiding   team incharge/PW4, i.e. Sh. A. C. Sharma, is claiming to have been apprised   about   the   said   information   by   PW1   Sh.   J.   S. Kandhari, but PW1 has clearly stated in his cross­examination that   the   information   mentioned   in   the   complaint   Ex.   PW1/A was not received by him personally and even the other officials of  DRI examined on  record were not  aware  as to  who  had actually received the said information.   The said information was also admittedly not reduced into writing  and it has further been admitted by the DRI officials on record that no register with   regard   to   receipt   of   any   such   informations   was   being maintained in their office at the relevant time.   In absence of the above evidence being led on record, the very basis of this SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 43 of  72 case comes under serious doubts.   Again, as per PW2 there were 6­7 members in the raiding team, including the drivers, but according to the raiding team incharge/PW4, the number of members of the raiding team was 7 or 8.  PW2 has stated on record that two official vehicles were used in the raid, but PW4 specifically states that only one official vehicle, i.e. a big vehicle,   was   used     in   the   raid.     None   of   the   raiding   team members   has   been   able   to   tell   the   registration   number   or make etc of the vehicles used in the above raid nor they were even   able   to   tell   the   sitting   arrangements   in   the   said vehicle/vehicles.     Further,   no   documentary   evidence   in   the form of any logbook etc to show the involvement of any such official   vehicle   in   the   above   raid   has   also   been   brought   or produced in the evidence.  PW4 was not even able to tell as to whether any logbook of the said vehicle showing the above visit of raiding team to ODRS was actually signed by him or by the driver concerned.  

57. Coming back to the above two public witnesses, it is the case of prosecution from the very beginning, as also deposed by all official witnesses of DRI, that the above two public witnesses  were joined in the proceedings around  the evening of 19.03.2012 itself and they both were also made to stay in the DRI office during the said night, as was the case with   official   members   of   the   raiding   team.     However,   no document in the form of any notice or requisition etc to make SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 44 of  72 these public witnesses join the above said proceedings has also been brought on record.  As per the depositions made by PW7, he was working as a peon in the office of Commissioner, Audit, Central Government of India and his office was located in the same building in which the office of DRI was located and being a government servant, he could not have been made to join the proceedings without the permission and approval of his senior officers.  However, even no document in this regard has also been brought in the evidence.  The evidence led on record   does   not   show   as   to   by   whom   and   from   where   the above   two   public   witnesses   were   actually   made   to   join   the proceedings.  

58. Again, it is also the case of prosecution from the very   beginning   that   the   above   two   independent   witnesses accompanied them to the ODRS for the above said raid and further that A­1 was apprehended with the above said cartons in their presence, but as already discussed above, PW7 has not supported this version of the prosecution story.  He claims to   have   been   called   in  the   DRI   office   only   during   his   office hours, though he was not able to tell the date or month or year etc of the same.   But certainly, he reached in the DRI office only   when   A­1   was   already   sitting   there   and   some   parcels were   being   prepared   in   the   office   by   the   DRI   officials. Surprisingly,   the   raiding   team   incharge,   i.e.   PW4   Sh.   A.   C. Sharma, has himself made very strange and self­contradictory SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 45 of  72 depositions with regard to participation of PW7 in panchnama proceedings from the very  beginning because  though in  his examination­in­chief, likewise the other official witnesses, he stated   that   two   public   witnesses   had   accompanied   them   to ODRS,   but   during   his   cross­examination   conducted   on 21.04.2015, he went to state on record that he does not now remember exactly if the two public witnesses visited the ODRS with them or not, but they joined the proceedings before the raiding   team   left   for   the   spot   and   they   even   stayed   in   their office during that night.   There was a strong reason behind making of the above depositions by this witness as it has been observed   by   the   court   that   his   above   depositions   dated 21.04.2015 were made only to cover up the depositions made by   PW7   in  this  court  on   07.04.2015,   i.e.  prior  to   the   above depositions made by PW4, in which PW7 claimed that he does not   know   in   what   case   the   above   lady   was   involved   nor anything   was   recovered   from   her   in   her   presence   and   he simply   signed   on   some   documents   at   the   instance   of   DRI officials   when   he   was   called   in   their   office   on   that   day. However, PW4 was perhaps unaware of the depositions which he himself had already made during his examination­in­chief dated 06.04.2015, wherein he had specifically stated that they left the DRI office, alongwith the above two public witnesses. It is also necessary to mention here that the examination­in­ chief of PW4 was recorded in this court in parts on 06.04.2015 and   07.04.2015   and   on   07.04.2015,   his   cross­examination SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 46 of  72 was deferred at request of Ld defence counsel.  By the time, this   witness   was   cross­examined   on   the   next   date,   i.e. 21.04.2015, PW7 stood already examined on the same day on which   the   cross­examination   of   PW4   was   deferred.     This attempt made by PW4 to cover up their case and to mould his depositions according to the stand taken by PW7 has done more damage to their case than benefiting it in any way.

59. Apart from all the above, though A­1 and A­2 are both muslim ladies and they would have been appearing in public in burqa or hijab, but strangely enough, as per the case of prosecution, A­1 was not wearing any burqa at the relevant time and it was despite the fact that she was allegedly carrying FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ with her at that time.  As per PW2, 2­3 other ladies were also accompanying A­1 at the relevant time when she was spotted by them and these 2­3 ladies had even accompanied her to the waiting area of platform no. 1 at ODRS,   but   as   per   the   case   of   prosecution   from   the   very beginning, no other lady was seen with A­1 at that time and it was only during her alleged statement made U/s 108 of the Customs Act that A­1 disclosed it that A­2 had also alighted from the above train and she (A­2) had even remained seated in the waiting hall, alongwith her. There also does not appear to be any justification as to why the search proceedings could not   have   been   conducted   at   the   premises   of   above   railway station or in the female waiting hall located on the above said SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 47 of  72 platform,   as   in   opinion   of   the   court,   there   was   nothing   to prevent   the   DRI   officials   for   conducting   the   search proceedings in the waiting hall area of ODRS.  As per the case of DRI, the search proceedings were not conducted there and the   accused   (A­1)   taken   to   their   office   only   because   she herself requested to do so during her written reply given on the notice,   but   this   claim   of   the   DRI   officials   only   adds   to   their miseries and untrustworthiness of their story as this court finds no   logic   or   reason   on   the   part   of   accused   to   make   such   a request  because  she  could  not  have  been  benefited  by  the same as there was always a possibility of planting something incriminatory   upon   her   or   in  her   baggage   in   the   DRI   office. Had  the  accused  been  so wise and clever, she  could  have opted   her   search   before   a   Magistrate   or   some   independent Gazetted   Officer   instead   of   offering   her   search   to   the   DRI officials, as claimed by the prosecution.  The explanation being furnished by PW4 that the female waiting room was not felt safe   for   the   search   proceedings   does   not   inspire   any confidence.     Further,   as   per   him   the   accused   was   taken   to their office for search only because the accused stated to them that she may be taken to some safe place, but contrary to the same, no such submission of accused is found to be recorded in her above reply that she felt the above place to be unsafe. As   also   discussed   above,   the   above   reply   of   accused   has already been discarded by this court as fabricated.  

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 48 of  72

60. Again, the evidence led on record is also found contradictory with regard to the role of PW3 Sh. B. K. Banerjee in the panchnama proceedings.  As per PW3, he had sent one telegram   about   arrest   of   accused   and   issued   summons   Ex. PW4/A, in response to which the statement Ex. PW4/B was tendered   by   the   accused   before   him,   and   during   his   cross­ examination,   he   has   also   specifically   stated   that   though   he was   present   in   his   office   at   the   time   when   the   panchnama proceedings were being conducted, but he was not present at the   place   throughout   at   the   time   of   conduction   of   the   said proceedings.  However, according to the raiding team incharge i.e. PW4, PW3 Sh. B. K. Banerjee remained present with them throughout the said proceedings.   It also looks strange as to why PW6 Ms. Poonam Aggarwal would write her statement  at request of accused or the accused making a request to her for writing   the   same   when   PW3   Sh.   B.   K.   Banerjee,   who   had tendered   the   above   summons   upon   the   accused,   is   not making   any   such   request   to   PW6   to   write   down   the   said statement.  

61. In view of the above, it is held that the evidence led on record by the prosecution regarding seizure of FICN of Rs. 2,36,000/­ from the possession of A­1 does not inspire any confidence and it fails to establish beyond reasonable doubts the   factum   of   recovery   of   the   above   said   FICN   from   the possession of above said accused.  

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 49 of  72 EVIDENCE ABOUT SEIZURE OF FICN WORTH RS. 60,000/­ FROM THE HOUSE OF A­2

62. As per the prosecution story, a seizure of FICN valuing   Rs.   60,000/­   was   also   effected   from   the   above residence   of   A­2   in   Aligarh,   UP   on   27.03.2012   and   it   was effected in pursuance of the alleged disclosures made by A­1 in her above statement Ex. PW4/B (D­7) made U/s 108 of the Customs Act and after the inputs conveyed by the DRI officials at Delhi to their counterparts at Lucknow.   However, there is no explanation from the evidence led on record as to how a long   delay   of   7­8   days   had   taken   place   in   acting   upon   the above inputs and effecting the above seizure of FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ from the house of A­2 as the first seizure of FICN valuing Rs. 2,36,000/­ was admittedly effected from and the above statement Ex. PW4/B made by A­1 on 20.03.2012.  The above seizure of Rs. 60,000/­ is also made doubtful for the reason   as   to   why   A­2   will   keep   the   above   cigarette   carton containing   FICN   of   Rs.   60,000/­   concealed   therein   at   her house   for   such   a   long   time   when   she   might   have   become aware of the fact that A­1, who belonged to the same town Aligarh, did not reach back at her home after they both landed at ODRS in the night of 19­20.03.2012 or that she was already apprehended   by   some   government   officials   with   the   FICN brought into India by her. Again, no document has also been brought on record by the prosecution to show as to by whom and by what mode the above inputs were conveyed by the DRI SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 50 of  72 officials at Delhi to their counterparts at Lucknow.   According to PW14 Sh. Dinesh Bouddh, the above inputs were received by   him   for   conducting   some   follow   up   at   Lucknow   on 22.03.2012 and acting upon the said inputs he had also issued one   search   authorization   dated   26.03.2012,   but   even   that search   authorization   has   not   been   proved   on   record   either during the depositions made by PW14 or in that of PW12 Sh. Karunesh Srivastava in whose favour, the same was issued.  

63. Further,   even   the   evidence   led   on   record   with regard to above seizure of FICN valuing Rs. 60,000/­ from the house of A­2 is not found to be convincing enough to be acted upon   by   this   court   as   the   depositions   made   by   the   official witnesses of DRI and UP Police with regard to the said seizure are not only contradictory and inconsistent with each other by the same are also not corroborated by the depositions made by   four   other   material   public   witnesses,   who   were   allegedly present at the time of said seizure.   It is observed that apart from PW12 Sh. Karunesh Srivastava and PW13 Sh. Ashutosh Dixit,   both   IOs   of   DRI,   Lucknow   and   PW26   Inspector Satyendra Singh, SHO of PS City Kotwali, Aligarh, four public witnesses   namely   PW15   Smt.   Sultana,   PW16   Sh.   Tola Pehalwan, PW17 Sh. Hasim and PW19 Sh. Anis were also claimed   to   be   witnesses   of   the   above   seizure   of   FICN amounting to Rs. 60,000/­ from the house of A­2.  PW15 Smt. Sultana   is   the   daughter­in­law   of   A­2   and   the   other   three SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 51 of  72 witnesses were the neighbours of A­2 at the relevant time and apart from this, PW19 is also stated to have been working as a carpenter in the same building, from the ground floor portion of which   the   above   seizure   was   effected.     However,   it   is observed that none of these witnesses has supported the case of prosecution with regard to recovery of the above FICN of Rs. 60,000/­ in their presence and they all have claimed that their   signatures   or   thumb   impressions   on   some   documents were   obtained   by   the   officials   involved   in   the   said   seizure, without disclosing the contents of these documents.  

64. It is observed from the evidence led on record that PW15   Smt.   Sultana   has   though   stated   that   A­2   was   her mother­in­law  and she (A­2) was residing in the above said premises on the ground floor portion when some government officials had visited the said premises, but she has also stated that she was not present at the time of their visit and when she came she had seen a big crowd in the house.  She has further stated that she does not know as to what was happening in the house and the said officials enquired from her about her identity particulars and thereafter, they asked her to put her thumb impressions on some papers, but she does not know the contents of the said papers.   She has further stated that these officials even did not ask anything about A­2 from her. Even   during   her   cross­examination  conducted  by   Ld  PP   for CBI, she stood to her above stand and specifically denied as SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 52 of  72 wrong   the   suggestions   given   to   her   about   recovery   of   a cigarette carton from the room of A­2 in her presence, which allegedly   contained   the   concealed   FICN,   or   making   of   any statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. in this regard, though she admitted that A­2 had earlier visited Pakistan and further though she also identified her thumb impressions on the panchnama Ex. PW12/A and some other documents.

65. Even   PW16   Sh.   Tola   Pehalwan   has   also   only stated on record that he was present at his house on that day when the grand daughter of accused (A­2) came to his house and told him that he was being called by her father named Nassu, who is the son of A­2.  He claims that when he visited the house of A­2, he found 4­5 officials in plain clothes sitting there   and   these   officials   asked   from   him   about   the antecedents   of   accused   (A­2),   to   which   he   replied   that   she was a good lady.  Then, he talks about putting his signatures on   some   documents   before   he   was   permitted   to   leave   the place by the said officials.  This witness was not even cross­ examined   by   Ld   PP   for   CBI   with   regard   to   his   above depositions,   which   are   apparently   contrary   to   the   case   of prosecution.

66. Likewise,   PW17   also   states   that   some government officials visited the house of A­2 few years back and   on   the   asking   of   these   officials,   he   had   put   his   thumb SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 53 of  72 impressions   on   some   papers   and   besides   him,   many   other persons were also present at the spot at that time.  Though, he also states that the panchnama Ex. PW12/A (RUD­1 of file FIR No.  203/12  of  PS   Aligarh),  which  was  shown  to  him  during evidence, was written in his presence, but  he further states specifically that in his presence no recovery of any notes was effected from the said house and also that he cannot tell what happened after he put his signatures on the said panchnama. This witness was also though cross­examined by Ld PP for CBI, but even during his cross­examination he maintained that he had not seen if any fake currency notes were recovered from   the   house   of   A­2   and   further   that   the   same   were   not recovered in his presence and were not shown to him.  

67. PW19   Sh.   Anis   has   also   stated   that   he   was working   as   a  carpenter   in  the   third   floor   portion  of   the   said house of A­2 at the relevant time, alongwith one other boy, when few officials visited him and asked about his contractor named Wali Mohd., who was not present there at that time. He states that the above officials had taken away their mobile phones   and   further   asked   him   to   bring   some   instrument   as they wanted to break open the lock of ground floor portion of house of accused and accordingly, he brought a wasooli (big hammer)     and   with   the   help   of   the   above   wasooli   the   said officials broke open the said lock and then they were told to go and to do their work.  He has further stated that after breaking SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 54 of  72 open the room, those officials entered the said room and after sometime they were again called by those officials and made to sign on some documents and their personal details were also noted down by those officials and they were permitted to leave  the  spot  after  handing over of  their  mobile  phones  to them.     He   has   further   identified   his   signatures   on   the panchnama Ex. PW12/A (RUD­1 of file FIR No. 203/12 of PS Aligarh).   During his cross­examination conducted by Ld PP for   CBI   also,   he   stood   to   his   above   version   that   no   fake currency  notes  were  recovered from  the room  of A­2  in his presence on that day nor he had seen any such notes.  

68. The above clear and specific depositions made by the above four material witnesses of prosecution story not only make the seizure of above FICN from the house of A­2 to be doubtful,   but   the   same   also   bring   the   authenticity   of   the relevant   documents   prepared   in   connection   with   the   above seizure under serious clouds.  It is observed on perusal of the above panchnama that though only PW16 Sh. Hasim (written as Haseen in the panchnama) and PW19 Sh. Anis were the two   panch   witnesses   (panchas)   joined   in   the   above   said panchnama   proceedings,   but   the   presence   of   Smt.   Sultana and one Smt. Sanjida at the time of above search proceedings has   also   been   claimed   as   per   the   contents   of   the   said panchnama and the depositions made by some of the official witnesses.  The panchnama is even found to be containing the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 55 of  72 alleged  thumb   impressions   of   these   two  ladies,   besides   the signatures of the above two panch witnesses.   However, it is necessary   to   mention   here   that   Smt.   Sanjida   has   not   even been   cited   as   a   witness   in   this   case   and   the   other   three persons   mentioned   above   have   not   supported   the   case   of prosecution regarding the above seizure, as already discussed above.   The panchnama Ex. PW12/A is also not found to be bearing   the   signatures   or   thumb   impressions   of   PW16   Sh. Tola   Pehalwan,   though   he   also   claims   to   have   put   his signatures on some documents at the instance of the above officials involved in the said seizure.  

69. In   the   absence   of   any   corroboration   from   the depositions   made   by   the   above   four   material   witnesses   of prosecution story on the aspect of recovery of above FICN of Rs.   60,000/­   from   the   house   of   A­2,   the   entire   case   of prosecution in this regard was dependent upon the depositions made   by   PW12,   PW13   and   PW26.     However,   even   the depositions made by these three official witnesses are found to   be   full   of   some   material   contradictions   and   lack corroboration   and   reliability.     As   per   PW12   and   PW13,   the above   house   of   A­2   was   a   double   storey   building,   but,   as already discussed according to PW19 he was working on the third floor  portion  of the  said building as  a carpenter at  the relevant time and his these depositions are in sharp contrast to the   depositions   made   by   the   above   two   official   witnesses.

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 56 of  72 Again,   as   per   all   the   above   three   witnesses,   the   above cigarette   carton   containing   FICN   concealed   therein   was recovered from one open shelf/block (inbuilt dome shape) in wall and the depositions of PW12 also suggest that the said block was visible in wall of the said room, but the depositions of PW13 and PW26 suggest as if the above block or shelf was not apparently visible and it was observed or found only after one white cloth bag hanging on the wall of room and covering the said block/shelf was removed from the wall.  As per PW12, this cloth bag/jhola was only hanging on the wall by the side of the above block and it was not covering the block.  Further, as per PW12 the outer gate of the ground floor as well as the door   of   the   above   room   of   accused   were   only   bolted   from outside and the same were not locked and his depositions also nowhere suggest that the said room of accused was opened in any   manner   by   her   daughter­in­law/PW15   Smt.   Sultana. However,   according   to   PW13,   the   door   of   the   above room/house   of   accused   was   locked   and   the   said   lock   was opened  by  PW15  Smt.  Sultana  Begum.    Even   according   to PW26, the said room was found locked at the relevant time and PW15 Ms. Sultana picked up a key from one ventilator and opened the lock of the said door.  However, one different version in this regard was given by PW19 Sh. Anis, as already discussed above, when he stated in court that lock of the said room was broken with the help of one wasooli (big hammer) brought by him at the instance of the above officials searching SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 57 of  72 the   said   room.     Thus,   the   depositions   made   by   the   above official  witnesses of the prosecution case with regard to the above seizure are also found to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration   and   reliability   from   each   other,   apart   from   not getting   any   corroboration   from   the   other   independent witnesses.  Moreover, it is also an admitted fact that A­2 was not   even   present   at   her   above   house   when   the   alleged recovery of FICN valuing Rs. 60,000/­ was effected from the said premises and there is also no documentary evidence to link her with the said premises.  Therefore, even the evidence led   by   prosecution   on   record   about   this   seizure   of   FICN amounting  to  Rs. 60,000/­  is not  trustworthy  and  cannot  be acted upon. 

ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCE OF STATEMENT OF A­1 U/S 108 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT

70. It is well settled now that the statement made by a person   U/s   108   of   the   Customs   Act   before   an   officer   of customs   is   admissible   in   evidence.     Further,   in   terms   of provisions of Section 138­B of the said Act, such a statement made before a Gazetted Officer of customs during the course of any enquiry or proceedings under the above said Act shall also   be   relevant   for   the   purposes   of   proving,   in   any prosecution for an offence under the said Act, the truth of the facts   contained  therein.   The  logic  behind   rendering  such  a statement as admissible in evidence is that a Customs Officer SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 58 of  72 is   not   a   Police   Officer   and   further   that   such   a   statement   is made prior to the arrest of the person concerned for any of the offences under the said Act and it is for these reasons, it has also been consistently held that such a statement is even not hit by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.  

71. As already stated above, though no statement of A­2 under the Customs Act could be recorded allegedly for the reasons that she remained absconding for a considerable time and   could   not   be   made   to   join   investigation   at   the   proper stage,   but   the   statement   Ex.   PW4/B   of   A­1   under   the   said provisions was recorded by PW3 Sh. B. K. Banerjee, who was a   Gazetted   Officer   of   DRI   also   having   been   conferred   with powers   under   the   Customs   Act.     It   is   this   statement   of   the accused (A­1) which is sought to be believed and acted upon by the prosecution for holding the accused persons guilty for the alleged offences, even in the absence of their being any substantive evidence to prove the factum of recovery of the above amounts of FICN from their respective possessions.  

72. However, it is also well settled now that if such a statement   is   confessional   in   nature   or   it   contains   the admissions or confessions of the person concerned showing his   involvement   for   the   alleged   offences,   then   such   a statement has also to answer the other safeguards provided SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 59 of  72 for a confessional statement made U/s 164 Cr.P.C., besides the basic requirement that it has to be made by the concerned person   voluntarily.     When   the   above   statement   Ex.   PW4/B allegedly made by A­1 is viewed from that angle, it is observed that   there   are   serious   doubts   about   making   of   the   said statement by the accused concerned voluntarily and rather the evidence led on record suggests that the DRI officials had got it   reduced   into   writing   on   their   own,   by   just   incorporating therein   personal   details   and   other   informations   which   they might have derived in the course of enquiries conducted from the said accused, after her apprehension in this case, to give it semblance of a voluntary and confessional statement of the accused under the above said provisions.  The very manner in which   the   minute   details   of   conduction   of   the   panchnama proceedings and the markings and sealing etc of the cigarette cartons and parcels thereof have been mentioned therein are sufficient to show that PW3 had just got reduced into it the details   of   the   panchnama   Ex.   PW3/A   (D­4)   prepared   with regard   to   the   alleged   seizure.     Moreover,   as   already discussed, the above statement is not in the handwriting of the above accused herself as she being illiterate was not able to write it.  Though, it is being claimed by the prosecution that it was  reduced  into  writing  by  PW6  Ms.  Poonam   Aggarwal   at request   of  the  said   accused   only,   but  as   already   discussed above, this court has serious doubts about making of such a request by the concerned accused to the above official of DRI SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 60 of  72 itself as there was no logic or reason behind doing the same. No effort was made to produce A­1 before a judicial Magistrate for recording of her confessional statement. No independent witness   was   also   admittedly   joined   at   the   relevant   time   of making it as no such witness is found to have witnessed the said statement.  Moreover, the above statement also does not contain   any   specific   endorsement,   either   made   by   PW3   or PW6, to the effect that the same was read over to A­1 or she was made to understand the contents thereof or further that the   thumb   impressions   of   the   said   accused   on   the   above statement were taken only after she understood the contents and   implications   thereof.     No   such   specific   depositions   are also found to have been made by any of these witnesses on record and the cumulative effect of all the above is that the above confessional statement Ex. PW4/B made by A­1 does not appear to this court to be a voluntary statement of the said accused, which can be acted upon by this court for holding the accused persons guilty for the serious offences punishable U/s 489B and 489C IPC carrying punishments upto 7 years and 10 years   respectively.     Apart   from   all   the   above,   there   is   no independent   corroboration   of   the   incriminating   disclosures allegedly made in the above statement of A­1 and further the same was even otherwise a very weak piece of evidence qua A­2, who was put on a joint trial with A­1 in the present case and it necessarily required independent  corroboration of  the facts   and   circumstances   stated   therein   before   it   could   have SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 61 of  72 been acted upon against the said co­accused.  

POSSESSION TO BE A CONSCIOUS POSSESSION

73. Though, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the above FICN amounting to Rs.   2,36,000/­   and   Rs.   60,000/­   were   recovered   from   the possession of A­1 and A­2 respectively, but even otherwise it is   now   well   settled   that   the   mere   possession   of   some incriminating   article   or   substance   by   an   accused   is   not sufficient to hold him guilty and the prosecution has also to prove   that   possession   of   the   said   incriminating   article   or substance by such an accused was a conscious possession on his part.  It is the admitted case of CBI that the above FICN were not recovered from possession of the accused persons in an   open   or   uncovered   condition,   but   the   same   were   found concealed in cigarette packets being allegedly carried by A­1 at the time of her apprehension from ODRS on 20.03.2012 or the   cigarette   packets   were   found   in   the   house   of   A­2   on 27.03.2012.   It is also the admitted case of prosecution that one   FICN   of   either   Rs.   500/­   or   Rs.   1,000/­   was   found concealed in most of the cigarettes recovered from possession of A­1 or A­2 and these notes could not have been seen or visible with the naked eyes and the same were recovered only when   the   contents   of   the   above   cigarette   packets   were checked   thoroughly   and   each   cigarette   was   opened   and   its SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 62 of  72 tobacco contents had also to be taken out therefrom.  Hence, a strong evidence was required to be led by the prosecution on record to establish or prove that both A­1 and A­2 were actually   aware   about   the   presence   or   concealment   of   the above FICN in the above cigarettes allegedly recovered from their possession.  

74. However,   when   the   evidence   led   on   record   is viewed from this perspective, it is observed that it is not the case of prosecution that secret information allegedly received in this case was to the effect that FICN were to be brought by a lady (A­1) being concealed in cigarette packets.   It is also observed   that   though   the   official   witnesses   of   DRI   have   all stated on record in a stereotyped manner that they apprised the   above   accused   about   the   contents   of   the   said   secret information and they also served a notice Ex. PW2/A U/s 102 of the Customs Act upon the said accused giving her an option for conduction of her search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate,   if   she   so   desired,   and   further   that   the   accused replied in negative to the said option, but none of them has specifically   claimed   on  record   that   they  also   questioned   the accused to the effect that as to if any FICN were concealed in the above cigarette packets cartons or further that the accused replied in positive to the said query or she admitted specifically that she was aware about the concealment of the above FICN in the above cigarette packets/cartons.  In the absence of that, SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 63 of  72 no inference can be drawn by this court that the said accused (A­1) was aware about the presence of the FICN amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/­ in the cigarettes packets contained in the above cigarette cartons alleged possessed by her, which were found concealed   in   the   said   cigarette   packets   below   the   cigarette papers   of   each   cigarette   and   in   a   very   discreet   and professional manner.  

75. Ld   PP   for   CBI   has   referred   to   the   contents   of statement Ex. PW4/B made by the above said accused U/s 108 of the Customs Act to show that possession of the above FICN by A­1 was a conscious possession thereof as it is found specifically   recorded   in   the   said   statement   that   the   above Pappu had told both the accused that as was already fixed, and also accepted by both the accused, FICN were concealed in the above cigarette packets.   However, as also discussed above, though the above statement made by A­1 is admissible in   evidence   and   also   relevant   in   the   present   case,   but   the same   by   itself   cannot   be   made   the   basis   to   convict   the accused as the contents thereof are not corroborated by any independent piece of evidence on the above aspect.  It cannot be ignored that A­1 was an illiterate lady aged around 65 years at the time of her apprehension and she might not have been even   aware   as   to   what   was   being   recorded   in   her   above statement at the instance of the DRI officials apprehending her and   that   too   by   another   official   of   the   DRI.     Hence,   the SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 64 of  72 evidence led on record is held insufficient to prove the fact that the alleged possession of A­1 of the above FICN amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/­ was a conscious possession.  As far as A­2 is concerned, the case of prosecution against her stands on a more   weaker   footing   as     the   alleged   recovery   of   FICN amounting to Rs. 60,000/­ was not effected from her actual physical possession and rather it was admittedly effected from some   room   or   house   which   could   not   even   be   exclusively linked to her.  

MENTAL STATE OF AN ACCUSED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 138­A OF THE CUSTOMS ACT

76. It is also one of the contentions of Ld PP for CBI that in terms of provisions of Section 138­A of the Customs Act, a culpable mental state on the part of accused is required to be presumed by this court and once the prosecution has proved   recovery   of   the   above   amounts   of   FICN   from   their possession, the onus lies upon the accused persons to prove that they did not have the requisite mental state to possess the same or that they were unaware about the presence of above FICN   in   the   cigarette   packets   recovered   from   them.     This submission of Ld PP has been made in the light of recovery of the   above   amounts   of   FICN   from   the   possession   of   the accused persons and further keeping in view the fact that A­1 was   initially   apprehended   and   arrested   for   the   offences punishable U/s 132 and 135 of the Customs Act.   SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 65 of  72

77. However,   technically   speaking,   the   above provisions   of   Section   138­A   of   the   Customs   Act   cannot   be made   applicable   in   this   case   as   the   very   language   of   the above Section makes it clear that the above presumption is available only in case if the prosecution of the accused is for an   offence   under   the   said   Act.     It   cannot   be   ignored   that though the proceedings of this case were initiated and even A­1 arrested initially under the Customs Act, but subsequently the   nature   of   proceedings   and   prosecution   stood   changed when a chargesheet was presented before this court for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/s 120­B IPC r/w Sections 489B and 489C IPC, which relate to the possession and import etc of the FICN.  Even the charges framed against the accused persons in this case are for these offences under IPC and not under the Customs Act.  

78. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 138­A of the Customs Act are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the charges framed against them for the above offences under IPC because the conditions laid down by Section 138­A of the above said Act itself have not met or satisfied in the present case.  Sub­section (2) of this Section clearly lays down that for the purposes of this Section, a fact is said to be proved only   when   the   court   believes   it   to   exist   beyond   reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance   of   probability.     As   already   discussed   above, SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 66 of  72 the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   on   record   beyond reasonable doubts the  factum  of recovery of the above FICN amounting   to   Rs.   2,36,000/­   and   Rs.   60,000/­   respectively from the possession of the above two accused and hence, no such inference about their mental state to possess the same can   be   drawn   by   this   court.     Moreover,   the   provisions   of Section   138­A   of   the   above   Act   are   found   similar   to   the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which also carries such a presumption of mental state on the part of an accused, though it also permits the accused to put a defence that he has no such mental state, as is in case of Section 138­A of the Customs Act.  However, it is also settled now that no separate defence evidence is required to be adduced by the accused to prove his such a defence and from the evidence led on record by the prosecution itself, he can establish or prove that he has no   such   criminal   mental   intent,   of   which   a   presumption   is required to be drawn in terms of provisions of Section 138­A of the Customs Act or Section 35 of the NDPS Act.  

79. It is necessary to mention here that apart from the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, Section 54 of the said Act also contained another specific presumption against an accused found in possession of some illicit articles under the said Act and this presumption was to the effect that it has to be presumed that the accused committed an offence under the said Act, until and unless the accused proved contrary to SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 67 of  72 the same.  In a celebrated judgment in case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008(3) JCC (Narcotics) 135, while interpreting the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:­ "Section   35   and   54   of   the   Act,   no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal the said provision would clearly   show   that   presumption   would operate in the trial of the accused only in   the   event   the   circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial   burden   exists   upon   the prosecution   and   only   when   it   stands satisfied, the legal burden would shift.

Even   then,   the   standard   of   proof required   for   the   accused   to   prove   his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution.   Whereas   the   standard   of proof   required   to   prove   the   guilt   of accused on the prosecution is "beyond all   reasonable   doubt"   but   it   is 'preponderance   of   probability'   on   the accused.     If   the   prosecution   fails   to prove   the   foundational   facts   so   as   to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act,   the   actus   reus   which   is possession   of   contraband   by   the accused   cannot   be   said   to   have   been established."

80. Thus, it is clear from the above legal propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even despite their being a presumption of criminal mental state on the part of an SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 68 of  72 accused in a prosecution under the Customs Act, as provided by Section 138­A of the said Act, the initial burden will always remain   on   the   prosecution   to   prove   its   case   beyond reasonable   doubts   and   this   principle   is   also   found   to   be specifically   incorporated   in   the   provisions   of   sub­section   (2) thereof, as stated above.  

CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

81. As   already   discussed   earlier,   besides   the substantive charges for the offences punishable U/s 489B and 489C   IPC   against   A­1   and   for   the   substantive   offence punishable   U/s   489C   IPC   against   A­2,   a  charge   for commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 489B IPC and 489C IPC was also framed against both the accused persons in respect of import etc of the above FICN from Pakistan to India and possession thereof.  However, apart from some evidence to the effect that they both might have visited Pakistan few months back and returned back to India by Samjhauta Express arriving at ODRS at   around   3:00   AM   on   20.03.2012,   i.e.   the   night   of   19­ 20.03.2012, there is no substantive evidence led on record to show the existence of any such criminal conspiracy hatched between   the   above   two   accused   to   bring   in   or   import   the above FICN from Pakistan to India or to possess the same. The evidence led on record nowhere shows any meeting of SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 69 of  72 mind   on   the   part   of   the   above   two   accused   in   travelling together to Pakistan to bring the above FICN illegally into the territory of India.   Further, it has also been discussed above that even their knowledge about the presence of above FICN concealed   in   the   cigarette   packets   allegedly   found   in   their possession may not be there.  This is apart from the fact that the evidence led on record about the factum of possession of the above FICN has also not been found to be trustworthy and capable on being acted upon by the court.  Again, as per the prosecution story, the above conspiracy was hatched by the above   two   accused   and   one   Pappu   @   Ashfaq   of   Lahore, Pakistan, but no any investigation was conducted either by the DRI or by the CBI officials to even ascertain the identity of the above Pappu @ Ashfaq, what to say of taking any steps to make him join the investigation of this case.   Hence, in the absence   of   their   being   any   independent   and   substantive evidence   showing   the   existence   of   any   such   criminal conspiracy between or on the part of the above two accused, either independently or alongwith the above Pappu @ Ashfaq, in importing or possessing the above FICN, the existence of such   a  conspiracy   cannot   also  be   inferred   from   the   alleged statement Ex. PW4/B of A­1 made U/s 108 of the Customs Act,   which   has   already   been   held   by   this   court   to   be   an involuntary  and  doubtful  statement.    Therefore, not  only  the prosecution has failed to prove its charges for the substantive offences framed against the above two accused for the above SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 70 of  72 said offences under IPC, but even the charge for the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable U/s 120­B IPC, as framed against them, remains unproved.

82. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the evidence   led   on   record   by   prosecution   is   not   sufficient   to establish the guilt of accused persons for the charged offences beyond   reasonable   doubts   and   hence,   both   the   accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the above said charges giving  benefit  of  doubt  to  them.    They  both  are  accordingly acquitted   in   this   case.     Their   bonds   under   Section   437A Cr.P.C, alongwith the photographs and residence proofs of the accused and sureties, have already been furnished on record and these bonds shall remain valid for a period of six months from   today,   as   provided   by   the   above   said   Section.     The previous bonds furnished on behalf of both the accused shall stand   discharged.     The   personal   documents   and   articles,   if any,   seized   from   possession   of   the   accused   persons   are directed   to   be   released   to   them   and   the   remaining   case property is directed to be confiscated and disposed off as per law.     This   is,   however,   subject   to   the   right   of   the prosecution/CBI to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the outcome of the said appeal, if any, or the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the above appeal, as the case may be. 

SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 71 of  72 File   be   consigned   to   Record   Room   after completing all the requisite formalities. 

Announced in open Court on 06.12.2016         (M.K. Nagpal)    Special Judge (PC Act), CBI­08, Central District, THC, Delhi SC No. 6/14, CBI Vs. Mehrool Nisha & Anr. Page No. 72 of  72