Delhi District Court
State vs Julfikar Alam And Ors on 1 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR
ASJ-02: NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Date of Judgment: 01.08.2024
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell
U/s: 489B/489C IPC
SC No. 165/2018
Unique case ID NO. DLND01-006179-2018
COMPLAINANT State
REPRESENTED BY State
ACCUSED PERSONS Julfikar Alam @ Anwar @
Aman,
S/o Sh. Firoz Alam
R/o Village Ghodasahan, PS
Harpur, District Motihari,
Bihar.
Uttam Mandal
S/o Sh. Atul Mandal
R/o Sahilapur, PS Kaliachak,
District Malda, West Bengal.
Deepak Kumar Mandal
S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Mandal
R/o Sahilapur, PS Kaliachak,
District Malda, West Bengal
REPRESENTED BY Sh. Abhinandan Gautam, Ld.
Counsel for all three accused
persons.
Date of Offence 17.12.2017
Date of FIR 17.12.2017
Date of Charge-sheet 13.02.2018
Date of Framing of Charges 20.02.2018
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 1 of 33
Date of commencement of evidence 12.04.2018
Date of which judgment is reserved 31.07.2024
Date of the Judgment 01.08.2024
Final Order Convicted
DETAILS OF ACCUSED :-
Rank of Name of Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of
Accused Accused Arrest Release on charged with Acquitted or imposed Detention
Bail convicted Undergone
during
Trial for
purpose of
section
428,
Cr.P.C.
Tailor Julfikar 17.12.2017 15.03.18 489B/489C Convicted - -
Alam @ IPC
Anwar @
Aman
Mason Uttam 17.12.2017 22.02.18 489B/ 489C Convicted - -
Mandal IPC
Mason Deepak 17.12.2017 22.02.18 489B/ 489C Convicted -- --
Kumar IPC
Mandal
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES
A. PROSECUTION
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE
WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS,
MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH
WITNESS. OTHER WITNESS)
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 2 of 33
SI Nirbhay First IO (PW1)
Singh
Rana
HC Kanwal Member of raiding team. (PW2)
Singh
HC Sushil MHC(M) (PW3)
Kumar
ASI Balraj Member of raiding team. (PW4)
ASI Jogender Duty Officer (PW5)
Singh
ASI Arvind Store Keeper (PW6)
Kumar
HC Mohd. Deposited the exhibits in CNP,
Arif Nasik. (PW7)
Khan
Inspector Ranjeet Second IO (PW8)
Singh
Nodal Officer Aircel Shishir Qua Mobile no. 9097440225(PW9)
Malhotra
Joint General Nilesh R. Expert from CNP, Nasik(PW10)
Manager Jadhav
Nodal Officer Bharti Ajay Qua Mobile no. 731914290 &
Airtel Kumar 9679875288 (PW11)
B. DEFENCE WITNESS, IF ANY :- NA
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE
WITNESS, EXPERT
WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS.
OTHER WITNESS)
NIL
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 3 of 33
C. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY :- NA
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE
WITNESS, EXPERT
WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS.
OTHER WITNESS)
NIL
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS
A. PROSECUTION :-
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
1 Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of
plastic containers.
2. Ex. PW1/B Seizure memo of
plastic containers.
3. Ex. PW1/C Rukka
4. Ex. PW1/D Site Plan of place of
arrest of accused
Julfikar Alam and
Uttam Mandal
5. Ex. PW1/P1 Container containing
FICNs.
6. Ex. PW1/P2 Container containing
FICNs.
7. Ex. PW1/DA Copy of DD No. 07
8. Ex. PW1/DB Copy of DD No. 03
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 4 of 33
9. Ex. PW3/A Copy of entries in
Register no. 19
10. Ex. PW3/B Copy of RC No.
208/12/17
11. Ex. PW3/D1 Copy of entry in
Register no. 21.
12. Ex. PW4/A Disclosure statement
of accused Julfikar.
13. Ex. PW4/B Disclosure statement
of accused Uttam
Mandal.
14. Ex. PW4/C Arrest memo of
accused Julfikar
15. Ex. PW4/D Arrest memo of
accused Uttam
Mandal.
16. Ex. PW4/E Personal Search
Memo of accused
Julfikar Alam.
17. Ex. PW4/F Personal Search
Memo of accused
Uttam Mandal.
18. Ex. PW4/G Seizure memo of
Container containing
75 FICNs.
19. Ex. PW4/H Arrest memo of
accused Deepak
Mandal
20. Ex.PW4/J Personal Search
memo of accused
Deepak Mandal.
21. Ex.PW4/K Disclosure statement
of accused Deepak
Mandal.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 5 of 33
22. Ex. PW4/L Seizure memo of
Train Ticket
recovered from
accused Uttam
Mandal.
23. Ex. PW 4/P1 Train Ticket
24. Ex. PW 4/M Site plan of the place
of arrest of accused
Deepak Mandal.
25. Ex. PW4/P2 Container containing
75 FICNs.
26. Ex. PW4/DA Copy of entry in
Deposit Register
regarding issue and
deposit entries of
seal.
27. Ex. PW 5/A Computerised print
out of FIR
28. Ex. PW5/B Endorsement over
rukka
29. Ex. PW5/C Certificate u/s 65B
IEA
30. Ex. PW6/A Copy of issue and
deposit entries of
seal.
31. Ex. PW9/A Copy of CAF of
accused Julfikar
Alam.
32. Ex. PW 9/B Certified copy of
CDR of mobile no.
9097440225 of
accused Julfikar
Alam.
33. Ex. PW9/C Cell ID Chart of
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 6 of 33
accused Julfikar
Alam.
34. Ex. PW9/D Certificate u/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act.
35. Ex. PW9/DA Covering Letter
36. Ex. PW 10/A Report of Currency
Note Press, Nasik.
37. Ex. PW11/A and B CAFs and ID proofs
of Ajit Mehto and
Asit Mandal.
38. Ex. PW 11/C and D Certified copy of
CDR of mobile nos.
7319142890 and
9679875288 used by
accused Uttam
Mandal and Deepak
Mandal.
39. Ex. PW11/E Certificate u/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act.
B. DEFENCE: NIL
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
Nil.
C. COURT EXHIBITS :- NIL
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description
Nil Nil
D. MATERIAL OBJECTS :- NIL
Sr. No. Material Object Number Description
Nil Nil
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 7 of 33
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Julfikar Alam @ Anwar @ Aman, Uttam Mandal and Deepak Kumar Mandal have been sent up to face trial in this Court for commission of offences punishable under sections 489B/489C IPC as to the trafficking/use/possession of Fake Indian currency notes (hereinafter referred to as "FICN").
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that pursuant to secret information regarding the presence of accused Julfikar Alam, who is indulged in the circulation of FICN, near Minto Bridge on 17.12.2017 at 8.00 a.m, SI Nirbhay Singh Rana alongwith the raiding team reached the place of information and took their respective positions. At about 8.10 a.m, accused Julfikar came from Ajmeri Gate side and started waiting for someone in front of gate of Railway Quarters, Thomson Road; after 5/7 minutes, co-accused Uttam Mandal also came there and after calling someone on phone, accused Uttam Mandal took out a packet from the pocket of his jeans pant and handed over the same to accused Julfikar; they both were duly identified by the secret informer and when they both were about to move, they were apprehended by the raiding team. On interrogation, they disclosed their names. Their search was taken. On taking search of accused Julfikar, the packet handed over by co-accused Uttam Mandal was seized which was found to be containing 150 FICN in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (totalling Rs.3 lacs). On State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 8 of 33 the search of accused Uttam Mandal, one paper envelope was seized which on checking was found to be containing 50 FICN in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (Totalling Rs.1 lakh). Accused Julfikar, on interrogation, disclosed that he got arranged these FICNs from one Deepak Mandal who handed over the same to accused Uttam Mandal for handing over the same to him for further supply. All the recovered FICNs were kept in separate transparent plastic boxes and were seized by the IO. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Balraj. Disclosure statement of both the accused persons recorded in which they both admitted to be indulged in circulation of FICN. The IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, further investigation was handed over to SI Ranjit Singh.
3. During investigation, pursuant to the disclosure statements of accused Julfikar Alam and Uttam Mandal, accused Deepak Kumar Mandal was also arrested from whose possession 75 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (totalling Rs.1.5 lacs) were recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded in which he disclosed that he used to procure FICN from one Mussraf @ Baba from Bangladesh. During investigation, accused Deepak Kumar Mandal was also found previously involved in case FIR No. 207/17 PS Kaliachak, Malda, West Bengal u/s 341/325/323/379/506/34 IPC.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 9 of 33
4. During investigation, all the recovered FICNs were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik and as per the report, all the suspected notes of Rs. 2,000/- denomination were opined to be counterfeit notes. Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet in the court of Ld. CMM filed and thereafter, vide order dated 13.02.2018, the matter stood committed to this Court.
5. Vide order dated 20.02.2018, charges were framed against all three accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s 489B/489C IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses:-
PW-1 Insp. Nirbhay Singh Rana was first IO of the case. He has deposed that on 17.12.2017, secret informer came to the office of Special Cell and informed him that accused Julfikar Alam, who is involved in the circulation of FICN, will come near Minto Bridge, New Delhi at about 8.00 a.m for the purpose of collecting the consignment of FICN from his associates and if raided, he can be apprehended alongwith FICN. PW1 recorded the said information in Roznamcha vide DD No. 7 and shared the same with Inspector Sudhir Kumar and on the directions of senior officers, raiding team was constituted comprising of himself, SI Alok Bajpayee, ASI Balraj Singh, ASI Satish Kumar, State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 10 of 33 HC Sanjiv, Ct. Kanwal Singh, Ct. Sajid and they all left for the spot alongwith the secret informer. He further deposed that on their way to the spot, they requested 5-7 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed without disclosing their whereabouts. They reached the spot at about 7.55 a.m and took their respective positions. He further deposed that at about 8.10 a.m, accused Julfikar came from the side of Ajmeri Gate and stopped near the gate of Railway Quarter, Thomson Road who was identified by the secret informer; after 5-7 minutes, another person came from the side of Minto Road Bridge and stopped near accused Julfikar; they both had conversation for about half minute and the accused, who came later, dialed a number from his mobile phone, they both talked on phone and thereafter, the accused, who came later, took out a white colour envelope from the pocket of his pant and handed over the same to accused Julfikar. PW1 further deposed that he immediately instructed the raiding team to surround both of them; they both were apprehended and on interrogation, they both disclosed their names as Julfikar and Uttam Mandal and accused Julfikar disclosed that he used to collect FICN from one Deepak Mandal.
PW1 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana further deposed that on taking search of accused Julfikar, 150 FICN in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (totalling Rs.3 lacs) were recovered. He further deposed that out of 150 notes, 50 notes were of one series, 51 notes of second series and 49 notes of third series. On search of accused Uttam Mandal, white colour State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 11 of 33 envelope was recovered from the left pocket of his pant which was found to be containing 50 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (totalling Rs.1 lakh). He further deposed that out of 50 notes, 15 notes were of one series, 10 notes of second series, 7 notes of third series and remaining 18 notes were in three series of six notes each. PW1 has further deposed that all the FICNs recovered from both the accused persons were kept in separate transparent containers, sealed the same and seized the same vide memos Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that seal after use was handed over to ASI Balraj. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW 1/C and handed over the same to Ct. Kanwal for registration of FIR and after registration, the further investigation was handed over to SI Ranjit Singh who came at the spot and he handed over the seizure memos, case property and both the accused persons to IO SI Ranjit Singh. PW1 has identified the FICNs recovered from accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal as Ex. PW 1/P1 and Ex. PW 1/P2 collectively. PW1 has correctly identified accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal.
PW-2 HC Kanwal Singh was one of the member of the raiding team. He has corroborated the testimony of PW1 SI Nirbhay Rana.
PW-3 HC Sushil was MHC (M). He has proved the relevant entries in Register No. 19 as Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/C. He has proved the copy of Road Certificate no. 208/12/2017 as Ex.
PW 3/B.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 12 of 33
PW-4 ASI Balraj. He was also one of the member of the raiding team. He has corroborated the testimony of PW1 SI Nirbhay Rana and PW2 HC Kanwal Singh.
He has further deposed that after registration of the FIR, SI Ranjit Singh came at the spot and interrogated accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal; the IO recorded their disclosure statements Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW4/B; both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW 4/C and Ex. PW 4/D; their personal search was taken vide memos Ex. PW 4/E and Ex. PW 4/F. PW4 has further deposed that accused Uttam Mandal has also disclosed about the involvement of their associate Deepak Mandal, who at that time, was stated to be present at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Road, near Aam Aadmi Party office. PW4 has further deposed that thereafter, they alongwith both the accused persons went to said spot and at the instance of accused Uttam Mandal, accused Deepak Mandal was apprehended; his search was also taken and during search one envelope containing 75 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each was recovered. He further deposed that out of 75 notes, 73 notes were of same serial number i.e. 8CB608207 and remaining 2 currency notes of same serial number i.e OKF304727. He further deposed that IO SI Ranjit Singh kept the recovered 75 FICN in transparent plastic container, sealed and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/G; IO arrested accused Deepak Mandal vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/H, personal search of accused Deepak Mandal was taken vide memo Ex. PW State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 13 of 33 4/J and his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/K was also recorded by the IO.
PW4 has further deposed that one train ticket Ex. PW 4/P1 was also recovered from the possession of accused Uttam Mandal which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/L. He has proved the site plan of the places from where abovementioned three accused persons were arrested as Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW 4/M. He also proved the case property i.e FICNs recovered from all three accused persons as Ex. PW 1/P1, Ex. PW 1/P2 and Ex. PW 4/P2. He has correctly identified the accused persons.
PW-5 ASI Jogender Singh/Duty Officer has proved the computerised print out of FIR as Ex. PW 5/A, his endorsement over the rukka as Ex. PW 5/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 5/C. PW-6 ASI Arvind Kumar, storekeeper in the office of Special Cell has proved the copy of relevant entries dated 17.12.2017 and 18.12.2017 as Ex. PW 6/A regarding issuance and deposit of seal "SPL CELL SR - 3" to SI Nirbhay Rana.
PW-7 HC Mohd. Arif Khan has deposed that on the instructions of the IO, he collected the case property from the MHC(M) alongwith forwarding letter vide RC No. 208/21/17 dated 02.01.2018 and deposited the same in Currency Note Press, Nasik. He has deposed that so long the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered in any manner. He has further deposed that on 08.01.2018, after his return from State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 14 of 33 Nasik, he handed over the receipt and copy of RC to MHC(M). PW-8 Inspector Ranjit Singh was the second IO of the present case. He has deposed that after the registration of present FIR, the further investigation was handed over to him and he accordingly reached at the spot where SI Nirbhay Singh Rana handed over the case property i.e. two sealed pulandas and both the accused persons i.e. Julfikar and Uttam Mandal to him alongwith other documents. He has further deposed that he interrogated both the accused persons; recorded their disclosure statement Ex. PW 4/A and B; arrested them and conducted their personal search vide arrest memos and personal search memos Ex. PW 4/C to Ex. PW4/F respectively; he also prepared the rough site plan Ex. PW 1/D at the instance of previous IO. He has further deposed that during personal search of accused Uttam Mandal, one train ticket Ex. PW 4/P1 was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/L. PW8 SI Ranjit Singh has further deposed that pursuant to disclosure statements, accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal took police party to DDU Marg in front of Aam Aadmi Party office from where at their pointing out, accused Deepak Mandal was apprehended; his formal search was taken and during search, one white envelope containing 75 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each were recovered from the pocket of his pant; the recovered FICNs were kept in transparent plastic container, sealed and seized by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/G; he arrested accused Deepak Mandal vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/H, personal search of accused Deepak Mandal was taken vide memo Ex. PW 4/J and he also recorded his disclosure State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 15 of 33 statement Ex. PW4/K. He has further deposed that he also interrogated the accused persons regarding source of acquiring such a huge quantity of FICN; the case property was deposited in Currency Note Press, Nasik and obtained the result; recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge-seet was filed in the court. He also identified the 75 FICNs in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- each as Ex. PW 4/P2. PW-9 Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel proved the certified copy of Customer Application Form with respect to Mobile No. 9097440225 as Ex. PW 9/A, as per which, the SIM card was issued in the name of accused Julfikar. He has also proved the Call Detail Record for the period from 16.12.2017 to 05.01.2018 and Cell ID card as Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C and also certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 9/D. PW-10 Nilesh R. Jadhav, an expert from Currency Note Press, Nasik has examined the 275 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each and gave his detailed report Ex. PW 10/A. As per the report, all the suspected notes were found to be counterfeit notes.
PW-11 Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd proved the certified copy of Customer Application Forms alongwith documents with respect to Mobile Nos. 7319142890 and 9679875288 as Ex. PW 11/A and Ex. PW11/B, as per which, the SIM card was issued in the name of Ajit Mehto and Ajit Mandal. He has also proved the Call Detail Record of both the mobile numbers as Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D and also certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 11/E. State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 16 of 33 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of all three accused persons was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein they have denied the entire prosecution case submitting that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of FICNs has been planted on them.
Arguments on behalf of Prosecution :-
8. Ld. Addl. PP for State has vehemently contended that the prosecution by way of examination of eleven witnesses and producing the incriminating evidence against the accused persons has successfully been able to prove that accused persons were very much indulged in circulation/supply of FICN.
9. It is further submitted that in the present case, accused Deepak Mandal handed over a consignment of FICNs to accused Uttam Mandal for onward transmission of the same to accused Julfikar and accordingly, on 17.12.2017 at about 08:20 AM, when accused Uttam Mandal handed over the consignment to accused Julfikar, they were caught red handed; on the identification of secret informer, accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal were apprehended and pursuant to their disclosure statements, accused Deepak Mandal was also arrested in the present case. It is further submitted that charges in the present case were framed against all the accused persons on 20.02.2018 under Section State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 17 of 33 489B and 489C IPC. It is further submitted that all the witnesses in the present case are police witnesses and they were intact and fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that though public persons were requested by the IOs to join the investigation but all of them refused to join on one pretext or the other.
10. It is further argued by Ld. Addl. PP that during investigation, accused Deepak Kumar Mandal was also found previously involved in case FIR No. 207/17 PS Kaliachak, Malda, West Bengal u/s 341/325/323/379/506/34 IPC and he is a professional supplier of FICNs and other two accused persons used to work for him.
11. It is further submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that accused Julfikar Alam and Uttam Mandal have been apprehended on the spot; huge recovery of FICNs has been effected from all three accused persons, so there are no chances of their false implication in the present case. It is further submitted that accused Deepak Mandal was apprehended on the disclosure statement of accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal.
Arguments on behalf of Accused persons :-
12. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that prosecution has failed to prove any conspiracy between the State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 18 of 33 accused persons in order to commit the alleged offence.
13. It is also argued that CCTV footage in the present case has not been procured by the IO to show the authenticity of the arrest of the accused and recovery of FICN, as alleged by the prosecution. It is further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons were arrested from the public place but no genuine efforts were made by the IO to join the public witnesses in the investigation.
14. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that previous involvement of accused is not in FICN case. It is further submitted that now the narrative that is being created by the prosecution is that accused Deepak Mandal gave the FICNs to Uttam Mandal for onward transmission to Julfikar but there is no evidence on record to show meeting of minds of the accused persons or that they were involved in the said conspiracy. The accused persons were arrested on 17.12.2017 but the CDRs started from 16.12.2017. It is further submitted that present case has been falsely cooked up by planting FICNs upon the accused persons which is not at all impossible for the police. It is further submitted that PW1, PW2 and PW4 are the police witnesses who are members of the raiding team. There are contradictions in their statements.
15. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that it is the case State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 19 of 33 of prosecution that after reaching the spot, accused Uttam Mandal took out his mobile phone, dialed a number and accused Julfikar also talked. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the said call detail should be available in the CDR of mobile number of accused Uttam Mandal but as per the CDR, last call was made at 8.07 a.m from the mobile phone of accused Julfikar.
16. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the mobile number 7319142890 was used by accused Uttam Mandal and mobile number 9679875288 was used by accused Deepak Mandal and as per the Customer Application Form, mobile number 7319142890 is found registered in the name of Ajit Mehto and mobile number 9679875288 is registered in the name of Asit Mandal but the IO for the reasons best known to him has neither examined Ajit Mehto nor Asit Mandal and hence, the ownership of both the sim cards has not been established and that these numbers were being used by accused Uttam Mandal and Deepak Mandal also cannot be established.
17. It is further submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has also failed to establish any prior connection between the accused persons. It is further submitted that accused Deepak Mandal used to supply FICN in exchange of original currency notes but in the present case, from the personal search of accused persons, no such amount of genuine currency was recovered.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 20 of 33
18. In rebuttal, Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that accused Julfikar came on the spot on 17.12.2017 at 8.10 p.m and after seven minutes, accused Uttam Mandal also came at the spot and at 8.17 p.m, call was made by accused Uttam Mandal and hence, the call at 8.07 p.m is not relevant to the facts of the present case and the same has also been corroborated by the charge-sheet itself. It is submitted that as per the CDR, accused Julfikar called Uttam Mandal at 8.07 p.m. It is further submitted that mobile phones of the accused persons were seized on the spot itself and hence, there are no chances of planting them upon the accused persons. It is further submitted that as per the personal search memo of accused Uttam Mandal Ex. PW 4/P, railway ticket dated 15.12.17 from Samastipur to Delhi, mobile phone and cash worth Rs.2170/- was recovered. It is further submitted that personal search is taken after the arrest of the accused by the second IO and the personal search is never done by the first IO as the first IO is only required to expose the deal and recover the FICN. In the present case, the deal was only to collect FICN and statement of PW1 is clear in this regard.
19. I have heard and considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State and also carefully gone through the material available on record.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 21 of 33
20. Accused Julfikar Alam, Uttam Mandal and Deepak Mandal have been charged for commission of offence punishable u/s 489B and 489C IPC.
Points of Determination :-
21. In order to bring home the charges for the commission of offence punishable u/s 489B IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients :-
(A) the currency-notes or bank-notes in question were forged or counterfeit;
(B) the accused sold to, or bought, or received, from, some person, or trafficked in, or used, as genuine, such notes; and (C) when in doing so, they knew or had reason to believe that such notes were forged and counterfeit.
(A) the currency-notes or bank-notes in question were forged or counterfeited:
22. In the case at hand, Sh. Nilesh R. Jadhav (PW10), Joint General Manager (Tech. Operation), India Security Press, unit of Currency Note Press, Nasik, Maharashtra has proved the report Ex.PW10/A. He has conclusively opined that 275 suspected notes were examined in detail by comparing with genuine note of respective variety with the help of modern scientific instruments and they are found to be 'counterfeited'. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of Sh. Nilesh R. Jadhav (PW10). Therefore, I have no hesitation in State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 22 of 33 observing that prosecution has successfully proved the first ingredient.
Let us now deal with second ingredient.
23. In the case at hand, SI Nirbhay Singh Rana (PW1) and Insp.
Ranjit Singh (PW8) have categorically testified that at about 8.10 a.m, one person was seen coming from the side of Ajmeri Gate who stopped near the gate of Railway Quarter, Thomson Road and started waiting for someone. That person was identified by secret informer to be Julfikar involved in circulation of FICNs and 5-7 minutes, another person came from the side of Minto Bridge and stopped near Julfikar; they both had conversation for about half minute; the person who came later handed over one white colour envelope to accused Julfikar and at that point of time, raiding team members apprehended both of them. They both were interrogated and they both disclosed their names Julfikar and Uttam Mandal. SI Nirbhay Singh Rana took search of the accused persons. On search of accused Julfikar, the white envelope handed over by accused Uttam Mandal was recovered which on checking was found containing 150 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/-each (totalling Rs.3 lacs) and on taking search of accused Uttam Mandal, one white envelope was recovered from the left pocket of his pant and on checking, it was found containing 50 FICNs in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- each (totalling Rs.1 lakh). It has also come specifically in the testimony of SI Nirbhay Singh State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 23 of 33 Rana (PW1) that accused Julfikar disclosed that he used to collect the FICNs from one Deepak Mandal. SI Nirbhay Singh Rana got the FIR registered and after registration of the FIR, further investigation was carried out by Inspector Ranjit Singh (PW8) and pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal, accused Deepak Mandal was arrested and on taking his search, one white colour packet was recovered from right pocket of his pant which was found containing 75 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each (totalling Rs.1.5 lacs). Both the above witnesses not only withstood the test of cross-examination but they were further corroborated, in all material aspects by the testimony of HC Kanwal Singh (PW2) and ASI Balraj (PW4). The testimony of above witnesses inspires confidence as defence has failed to point out any material irregularity, discrepancy, omissions or any contradiction in their testimonies.
24. All three accused persons were found in possession of huge amount of FICNs and they have miserably failed to explain the possession of FICNs. It is presumed that they are in conscious possession of FICNs. At this stage, it is apt to refer Rayab Jusab Sama Vs. State of Gujarat 1989 Crl. L J 942 and Shabbir Sheikh v. State of Madhya Pradesh Crl. Appeal no. 162/2015, 452/2015 and 453/2015 decided on 10.05.2018 wherein it was constantly held that possession of large number of FICNs cannot be regarded as a mere case of dormant possession of large number State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 24 of 33 of fake currency notes, but it is a case of active transportation of the currency notes. Similarly, the Division Bench of Kolkata High Court in the case of Sunil Pramanik @ Sonu v. State of West Bengal in CRA 562 of 2018, decided on 22.11.2019, held as under:
"...11. Section 489B uses the phrase "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine". This phrase assumes importance in the context of the fact that the term "traffics" is not defined for the purpose of Section 489B or for the IPC generally. The phrase "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine" is added on to a string of phrases which results in the sentence that delineates the ingredients of the offence as defined in Section 489B; the punishment for which is prescribed in that section. The activities which would amount to an offence punishable under Section 489B of the IPC are firstly, selling, buying or receiving. The provision to this effect in the section is "whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person". Therefore, the involvement of at least two persons is necessary for performing the activity of selling, buying or receiving which would amount to an offence for the purpose of Section 489B. If that be so, an important issue for consideration would be as to whether any activity which falls into the concept "or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine" could be anything that could be treated differently from selling, buying or receiving or whether the term "traffics"
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 25 of 33 has to be read ejusdem generis with "sells", "buys" or "receives". It was argued on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Parakh Foods Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 4 SCC 584 that the term "traffics" has to be read ejusdem generis with the phrases "sells to", "buys" and "receives from any other person" and that the junction of another person is necessary to accomplish such acts. It is here that use of the word "otherwise" gains critical importance. The word "otherwise" is used to indicate the opposite of, or contrast to, something already stated when used as part of a phrase as "or otherwise". Even when the word "otherwise" is used not as part of a phrase as "or otherwise", but as an adverb or an adjective, such usages are also resorted to, to draw a contrast or distinction. The word "traffics" as well as the word "trafficking" and "trafficked" are used to describe the action of dealing or trading in something illegal. The activity or activities which would amount to "sells to", "buys" or "receives from" any other person, may require the participation of two persons to complete any such transaction. However, any activity which would fall within the phrase "otherwise traffics in" does not indispensably require active participation of more than one person if noticeably sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in the possession of that person and such concealed possession cannot be treated as dormant possession. It is active transportation State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 26 of 33 which amounts to trafficking. Any other mode of interpreting the phrase "or otherwise traffics" would dilute the rigour of law. A strict and literal interpretation of the penal provision contained in Section 489B of the IPC does not lead us to any other conclusion. Thus, the phrase "or otherwise traffics" in Section 489B of the IPC would take within its sweep, the action of dealing or trading in forged counterfeit currency note or bank note even otherwise than by selling, buying (purchase) or receiving. Therefore, the word "traffics" and the phrase "or otherwise traffics in" in Section 489B of the IPC are not to be read ejusdem generis with the words "sells", "buys" or "receives"; but ought to be read to understand that activities other than selling, buying or receiving would also fall into the basket of the incriminating factors which constitute the ingredients of the acts and omissions which is an offence as per that Section."
25. Thus, the Court has no hesitation to hold that accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal reached at the spot where accused Uttam Mandal handed over one packet containing 150 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each to accused Julfikar which were given to accused Uttam Mandal by accused Deepak Mandal for onward delivery to accused Julfikar. Recovery of FICNs worth Rs.5.5 lacs was effected from the possession of all three accused persons which shows the intention of the accused persons in possessing the FICNs only for the purpose of trafficking or State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 27 of 33 circulating the same. This is not the case where accused persons were possessing FICNs accidentally without having knowledge of the same to be fake, therefore, the mensrea is very much established in the present case from the facts and circumstances. The total FICNs worth Rs.5,50,000/- recovered from the possession of all three accused persons. In order to prove the recovery and arrest of all three accused persons, testimony of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8 have been recorded who have duly proved the case of the prosecution and also correctly identified all three accused persons. Therefore, the testimony of these witnesses remained unchallenged.
26. Considering the intrinsic worth of testimony of PW1 SI Nirbhay Singh Rana and PW8 Inspector Ranjeet Singh, I am convinced that prosecution has also successfully proved the second ingredient of the offence.
Let us now deal with third ingredient.
(C) when in doing so, they knew or had reason to believe that such notes were forged and counterfeit :
27. In the case at hand, 275 FICNs in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- each have been recovered from the possession of all three accused persons. They have failed to offer any explanation, leave aside a reasonable one, as to how the accused persons came in the possession of such a huge cache of FICNs.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 28 of 33
28. In the absence of any explanation, the only irresistible inference that can be drawn is that the accused persons were fully conscious of nature of currency notes and have every reason to believe that the currency notes were counterfeited.
29. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 489B IPC.
30. Let us now deal with the contentions of Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
31. During the course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel has highlighted that at the time of arrest of the accused persons, who were arrested from the public place, no genuine efforts were made by the IO of the present case to join the public witnesses to join the investigation.
32. It is matter of common knowledge that members of general public, for obvious reasons, these days are reluctant to come forward and testify. Thus, merely because, the prosecution has failed to examine any public witness, the other credit worthy witnesses and clinching testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Karamjit Singh v. State (AIR 2003) SC 1311 and Izazul v. State 2007 (IV) State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 29 of 33 RCR (Crl) 315. Thus, I do not find any merits in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that the case of the prosecution deserve to be discarded for want of corroboration by any independent public witness.
33. Ld. defence counsel has also argued that no CCTV footage has been procured by the IO of the places from where the accused persons were arrested. On this count, I am of the view that the onus is upon the accused persons to disprove the case of the prosecution as prosecution by examining the witnesses has proved the recovery of FICNs in the presence of members of the raiding team. Accused persons are challenging the case of the prosecution, so, therefore the onus is upon the accused persons to bring on record such material which discredits the case of the prosecution and if the CCTV footage was so important for the defence of the accused persons, then it was the responsibility of the accused persons to bring the best evidence in their support to demolish the case of the prosecution and if they fails to do so, responsibility to produce the same in the court cannot be casted upon the prosecution.
34. It is submitted by Ld defence counsel that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. Considering the unbreached testimonies of the witnesses available on record coupled with huge recovery of FICNs from the accused persons, plea regarding their false implication is without any basis.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 30 of 33
35. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that investigation regarding ownership of mobile numbers 7319142890 and 9679875288 has not been carried out and even it could not be established that these numbers were being used by Uttam Mandal and Deepak Mandal. This Court is of the opinion that when both the accused persons were arrested, their mobile phones alongwith above sim cards were recovered at the spot itself during their personal search and hence, it is proved that both the above mobile numbers were being used by accused Uttam Mandal and Deepak Mandal.
36. So far as contention of Ld. Defence counsel regarding proof of conspiracy is concerned, no charge was framed against the accused persons for conspiracy, hence, the said contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is not at all sustainable.
37. Ld. defence counsel has also raised his concern with regard to timings of calls made by accused Uttam Mandal on 17.12.2017. Though, it has not been proved from the CDR Ex. PW 11/C of the mobile number used by accused Uttam Mandal that any call was made from the mobile phone of accused Uttam Mandal at about 8.10 a.m on 17.12.2017 but this Court is of the opinion that this fact is not such a material fact which can demolish the case of the prosecution. Accused Julfikar and Uttam Mandal have been caught red handed at the spot and from the spot itself, State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 31 of 33 huge recovery of FICNs has been effected from both the accused persons and pursuant to their disclosure statement, accused Deepak Mandal was apprehended and from his possession also, FICNs were recovered.
38. Let us now deal with the commission of offence u/s 489C IPC, which reads as under:-
Section 489C of Indian Penal Code 489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.-- Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note,knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
39. Since accused Julfikar Alam, Uttam Mandal and Deepak Kumar Mandal have already been convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 489-B IPC, which includes the possession of FICNs punishable u/s 489-C IPC, hence, convicting the accused persons u/s 489-C IPC also shall be a redundant exercise. Reliance is placed upon V. Govindrajalu v. State of Mysore (1962) 2 Cr LJ 765, AIR 1962 Mysore 275, 278.
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors FIR No. 88/2017 PS: Special Cell Page no. 32 of 33
40. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, accused Julfikar Alam, Uttam Mandal and Deepak Kumar Mandal are held guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 489B IPC and are convicted thereunder.
41. Convicts/accused persons, namely, Julfikar Alam, Uttam Mandal and Deepak Kumar Mandal, shall be heard on the point of sentence on the date as fixed by the Court.
Typed to the dictation directly, Digitally signed
by DR
corrected and pronounced in the DR HARDEEP
open Court on 01.08.2024 HARDEEP KAUR
Date:
KAUR 2024.08.01
15:32:39 +0530
(Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
Additional Sessions Judge-02
New Delhi District, New Delhi
State v. Julfikar Alam & Ors
FIR No. 88/2017
PS: Special Cell Page no. 33 of 33