Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Adarsh Pal Singh on 26 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 01/13
RC Number : 220/2012/E/0014EOU
VI/EOII/CBI, New Delhi.
CBI Vs Adarsh Pal Singh
S/o Manmohan Singh
R/o 3/67, Kohli Garden,
Civil Lines, Haldwani,
P.S. Kotwali, Haldwani,
District Nainital, Uttarakhand.
Under Section: 120B IPC r/w Section 489B & 489C IPC
Date of Institution : 21.08.2012
Date of conclusion of arguments: 11.02.2014
Date of judgment : 25.02.2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Chargesheet for offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC r/w Sections 489B and 489C IPC as well as substantive offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489 C IPC, was filed against the accused Adarsh Pal Singh. S C No.01/13 1/34
2
2. In brief, the facts are that PW8 K.K. Sood, who was Deputy Director, DRI, posted at DRI HQs. New Delhi, on 20.05.2012, received an information on telephone about a person named Adarsh Pal Singh, staying in Room No. 105 of Hotel 'My Inn' in the area of Paharganj, New Delhi, was carrying fake Indian currency notes. After the information was received by PW8, K. K. Sood, he called PW4, R. Roy, who was Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI at DRI HQ, New Delhi, and after sharing the information received, asked him to constitute a team for taking further action in the matter. A team was constituted by PW4 R. Roy, consisting of PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma, PW1 Ajay Bhasin, PW9 Deepak Kumar Mangotra, PW12 Rajpal Singh, all Intelligence Officers, DRI posted at DRI HQ, New Delhi. One or two subordinate staff was also included in the team and all the members of the team, so constituted by PW8 K.K. Sood, alongwith PW4 R. Roy, himself, reached Hotel 'My Inn' at 901, Chandiwali Lane, Paharganj, New Delhi. Two independent witnesses being PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq and PW26 Karan Yadav, were called by PW4, R. Roy, to join the team. Both, PW21 Mohd. S C No.01/13 2/34
3 Mushtaq and PW26 Karan Yadav, were working as Waiters at Hotel 'My Inn'. The information received was shared with the independent witnesses being PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq and PW26 Karan Yadav. Search Warrant was issued for conducting search at Room No. 105 of Hotel 'My Inn' by PW8 K.K. Sood, in favour of PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma. PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI, showed the Search Warrant to PW7 Bichitra Nanda Sahu, who was working as Manager at Hotel 'My Inn'. PW7 Bichitra Nanda Sahoo as well as independent witnesses being PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq and PW26 Karan Yadav, signed the Search Warrant. DRI officers reached Room No. 105 of Hotel 'My Inn', where accused Adarsh Pal Singh, opened the door. Notice under Section 102 of Customs Act was given by PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI, to accused Adarsh Pal Singh, and he was given the option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Search of the belongings of the accused Adarsh Pal Singh, found in Room No. 105, was taken. No incriminating material was found in the other baggage of accused Adarsh Pal singh, but from a S C No.01/13 3/34 4 cardboard box, one SONY T.V was recovered, and during the examination of the cardboard box, when T.V was opened on the back side, same was found containing 3183 Indian currency notes of Rs.500 denomination, which appeared to be fake by naked eyes, and when accused Adarsh Pal Singh was questioned, he expressed ignorance about the concealment of currency notes in the T.V. In the Panchnama Ex. PW1/C, it is recorded that accused Adarsh Pal Singh explained that one Shera @ Bunty of Bangkok had requested him to take one T.V to India for delivery to his brotherinlaw named Nawab at Delhi, further informed that said T.V was handed over to him that day morning, i.e. 20.05.2012 by one Aslam at the behest of said Shera @ Bunty at Bangkok Airport for delivering the same to Nawab at Delhi on 20.05.2012.
3. Pursuant to a notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, accused Adarsh Pal Singh made a statement under Section 108 of Customs Act before PW4 R. Roy, Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, Ex. PW4/C, on 21.05.2012 wherein accused told that on 20.05.2012, when he was about to leave his restaurant in the morning, Mr. Aslam had come with a SONY Bravia S C No.01/13 4/34 5 Model BX 353280.0EM, packed in the cardboard box with fake Indian currency notes, concealed in the T.V and he had agreed to carry the T.V alongwith him, as he was to get Rs. 12,000/ for carrying the same to India.
4. The fake Indian currency notes so seized, were sent to Currency Notes Press at Nasik, Maharashtra, and PW23 Jitender Kumar Chaudhary, who was working as Assistant Works Manager, Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra, examined the currency notes and proved his report Ex. PW3/D to the effect that all the currency notes examined by him were 100 % fake notes.
5. PW5, B.K. Banerjee, Assistant Director, DRI at DRI HQ, made a complaint dated 21.05.2013, Ex. PW5/A with CBI, EOU, for taking action against accused Adarsh Pal Singh, as per law. The case was investigated by PW27 Naresh Indora, Inspector of Police, CBI, and chargesheet was filed accordingly.
6. Prosecution has examined 27 witnesses in order to substantiate the allegations against the accused Adarsh Pal Singh.
S C No.01/13 5/34
6
7. PW1 Ajay Bhasin, PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma, PW9 Deepak Kumar Mangotra and PW12 Rajpal Singh, were all working as Intelligence Officers with DRI and were members of the team alongwith PW4 R. Roy, Sr. Intelligence Officer, by whom the team was constituted, and have deposed as regards the recovery of fake Indian currency notes Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P3218 from the cardboard box containing T.V from Room No. 105 of Hotel 'My inn' at 901, Chandiwali Lane, Paharganj, New Delhi.
8. PW2 S.K. Bhalla, Intelligence Officer with DRI had accompanied PW1 Ajay Bhasin to Currency Notes Press, Nasik, taking the case property in the form of fake Indian currency notes to Currency Notes Press, Nasik on 02.07.2012, as per the directions of PW3 J.S. Kandhari, who was Deputy Director, DRI at DRI HQ.
9. PW5 B.K. Banerjee, Assistant Director, DRI, filed a complaint Ex. PW5/A with CBI.
10. PW7 Bachitra Nanda Sahoo, was the Manager of Hotel 'My Inn'.
11. PW16 Kamaldeep Singh was the Supervisor at Hotel S C No.01/13 6/34 7 'My Inn', and has deposed as regards the stay of accused Adarsh Pal Singh in the hotel.
12. PW19 Amardeep Singh Duggal was the Proprietor of Hotel 'My Inn'.
13. PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq and PW26 Karan Yadav, are the independent witnesses.
14. PW20 Mohd. Tahir Hussain, was another Manager at Hotel 'My Inn'.
15. PW10 Ram Singh, was working as Manager with M/s Onkar Travels at H10, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi, which had been issuing the National and International tickets. He had handed over documents to CBI on 11.08.2012.
16. PW11 Damanpreet Singh, was also working with M/s Onkar Travels in year 2012, and has testified regarding reservation of air ticket in the name of Adarsh Pal Singh from DelhiBangkokDelhi on 23.03.2012, the travelling date of the ticket being 25.03.2012, air ticket Ex. PW11/A proved by him. The witness also deposed as regards the reservation of air ticket in the name of Adarsh Pal Singh from DelhiBangkok Delhi on 27.12.2011 and the travelling date of the ticket was S C No.01/13 7/34 8 30.12.2011, air ticket Ex. PW11/B also proved by him.
17. PW17 is Pawan Duggal, an employee of M/s Onkar Travels and has testified as regards the issuance of air tickets in the name of Adarsh Pal Singh being Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B.
18. PW13 Satish Chaudhary, was working as Air Customs Superintendent, Delhi Customs at IGI Airport on 20.05.2012, posted at Green Channel, Arrival Hall of IGI Airport. The witness has deposed as regard the procedure and testified that goods having value less than Rs.35,000/ can be imported into India as duty free goods and are permitted to pass through Green Channel. PW13 further testified that SONY LCD 32"
falls into duty free category and it is optional for a passenger to adopt Green Channel, if he feels that value of the goods being carried by him, is less than Rs.35,000/.
19. PW14, Ms. K.A. Nagamani, was posted as Sr. Manager, Commercial Department(Ground handling) in Air India Ltd. on 07.08.2012 and testified about the letter dated 07.08.2012 Ex. PW14/A written by her to Sh. Asif Jalal, SP, CBI, in regard to the baggage of Adarsh Pal Singh, who arrived at IGI S C No.01/13 8/34 9 Airport on 20.05.2012 by Air India flight No. AI333.
20. PW15 Ami Lal Kareer, was posted as Superintendent, Customs at IGI Airport on 07.08.2012, has testified as regards the handing over certain documents to Inspector Naresh Indora of CBI on 07.08.2012 vide Production Memo Ex. PW15/A.
21. PW18 Mrs. O.Raikhan, was posted as Assistant General Manager( Commercial) in Air India, has testified as regards the information given by her confirming that passenger Adarsh Pal Singh, was booked to travel on flight no. AI333 on 20.05.2012 from Bangkok to Delhi, vide letter dated 13.07.2012 Ex. PW18/B to CBI confirming that the passenger had checked in on that day with two pieces of baggage, which included one T.V of 15 kg.
22. PW24 Ram Chander, was working as ACP, FRRO, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in year 2012, and has testified as regards the Disembarkation Card of Adarsh Pal Singh dated 20.05.2012 Ex. PW24/C sent to CBI alongwith letter Ex. PW24/B and has also testified that alongwith the letter, photograph of the passenger taken at the time of arrival, was also sent. Photograph of Adarsh Pal Singh has been proved as S C No.01/13 9/34 10 Ex. PW24/D. PW24 has also testified that Adarsh Pal Singh had arrived in India by Air India Flight No. 333 on 20.05.2012, which was a flight from Bangkok.
23. PW25 Ritesh Kumar, Manager, System and Manager, Computer Center, Air India, IGI Airport, New Delhi has proved the details pertaining to passenger Adarsh Pal Singh, who arrived in India on 20.05.2012 by Flight No. AI333 and same has been proved as Ex. PW25/A. The witness has also proved the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW25/B, given by him.
24. PW27 Inspector of Police/CBI, Naresh Indora conducted the investigation and filed the chargesheet in the matter.
25. Accused Adarsh Pal Singh, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and his statement to that effect was recorded. Mainly, the stand taken on behalf of the accused is that the cardboard box was given to him at Bangkok Air Port in a sealed condition and he was not knowing that there was a T.V inside the cardboard box. Accused had also taken the stand that on his asking, the DRI officers had requisitioned the S C No.01/13 10/34 11 CCTV footage of Bangkok Airport, which was not sent by them but withheld deliberately. The accused had also taken the stand that he had stayed in Room No. 107 of Hotel 'My Inn' and he had not received the call, received at the hotel, himself, but those were received by DRI officers. Accused also stated that no search of his baggage was done by DRI officers in his presence, who had carried away all his baggage to DRI office. Accused has also taken the stand that DRI officers had also seized the CCTV footage of Hotel 'My Inn' in his presence, but same has been withheld and not produced in the Court. Accused has also taken the stand that he had not given any voluntary statement and he was forced to sign the papers on the next day at DRI office. In his statement, accused had also stated that he had told the DRI officers that cardboard box was given to him by a person known to him being Inderpreet Singh and was residing in Bangkok.
26. No witness was examined by the accused in his defence.
27. Arguments were heard on behalf of both CBI as well as the accused and I hold as under.
S C No.01/13 11/34
12
28. As regards the charge U/S 489B IPC.
Section 489B IPC reads as under: 489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
29. The main ingredients of offence punishable U/S 489B IPC are that of selling, buying, receiving, otherwise trafficking or using as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currencynotes etc. as is clear from the head note given to the Section. The words sells, buys, receives, traffics or using as genuine must be held to have been used as ejusdem generis. The case of the prosecution is based on two facts. Firstly, on the recovery of the fake Indian currency notes from the possession of the accused when the fake currency notes were recovered from the T.V. set which was carried by the accused from Bangkok to New Delhi and Secondly, the statement U/S 108 of the Customs Act made by the accused to PW4 R.Roy, Sr. S C No.01/13 12/34 13 Intelligence Officer, DRI on 21.05.2012 which is Ex.PW4/C. Even if, the facts stated in the statement Ex.PW4/C are taken at face value, there is no evidence against the accused to show that he was in any way involved in selling, buying, trafficking or using as genuine the said fake Indian currency notes recovered from his possession. So, now we are left with only the receiving of the said fake Indian currency notes by the accused from any other person, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeit currency notes. The equivalent word for the word 'receive' in Latin is 'recipere' meaning, reback + cabere, to take. The dictionary meaning of the word 'receive' is to take or get (something given, offered, send etc.). So, the word 'receives' used in Section 489B IPC should have a meaning more than just transferring of the custody of a thing from one person to another person, meaning thereby that the person receiving something from any other person, must have dominion over that property and should be in a position to use the same on his own account.
30. As per the Panchnama Ex.PW1/C prepared during the night intervening 20.05.2012 and 21.05.2012, while the S C No.01/13 13/34 14 recovery was effected from the possession of accused as per the case of prosecution, the accused had informed the DRI officers that one Shera @ Bunty of Bangkok had requested him to take one T.V to India for delivery to his brotherinlaw named, Nawab, at Delhi. It is also mentioned in the Panchnama Ex.PW1/C that accused further informed that the T.V was handed over to him in the morning of 20.05.2012 at Bangkok Airport by one Sh.Aslam at the behest of said Shera @ Bunty, for delivering the same to one Nawab at Delhi on 20.05.2012.
31. In statement Ex.PW4/C, recorded U/S108 of the Customs Act, it is stated that accused informed DRI Officers that on 20.05.2012 in the morning, when he was about to leave his restaurant in Bangkok for a journey to New Delhi, Mr. Aslam came with a SONY Bravia T.V packed in the cardboard box with fake Indian currency notes concealed in the said T.V and he was told by Mr. Aslam that same were covered with a carbon paper, to avoid detection in XRay machine at Bangkok Airport and at New Delhi Airport and he had agreed to carry the aforesaid T.V with fake Indian S C No.01/13 14/34 15 currency notes concealed in the said T.V, as he was to get Rs. 12,000/ from Mr. Nawab after the T.V had been handed over to said Nawab. Therefore, it is clear that custody of the T.V was not taken or got by the accused within the meaning of word 'receives' as used in Section 489B IPC and so, the ingredients of offence punishable U/S 489B IPC are not made out against the accused.
32. As regards the charge for offence punishable U/S489C IPC, in a statement recorded U/S 313 CrPC, accused Adarsh Pal Singh has stated that fake currency notes were not recovered from the T.V which was carried by him from Bangkok to Delhi, further stating that all his belongings were immediately taken away by DRI officers from the hotel and no search of the same was conducted in his presence. However, during the examination of the witnesses, no such stand was taken on behalf of the accused and the stand taken was restricted to the assertions recorded in the Panchnama Ex.PW1/C that he was not aware of the fact of fake Indian currency notes having been hidden in the T.V set. Apart from the statement Ex. PW4/C, several witnesses have testified as S C No.01/13 15/34 16 regards the recovery of the currency notes, which were hidden inside the T.V set namely PW1, Ajay Bhasin, IO, DRI, PW4, R. Roy, SIO, DRI, PW6, Avdhesh Chander Sharma, IO, DRI, PW9, Deepak Kumar Mangotra, IO, DRI and PW12, Rajpal Singh, IO, DRI. As per the case of the prosecution, two public witnesses who were working as waiters at hotel 'My Inn', were also joined to witness the proceedings. One of them being PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq, had testified as regards the recovery of currency notes from the T.V set and second being PW26, Karan Yadav, however, did not support the case of the prosecution, just stating that he was made to sign the documents prepared at the hotel. Apart from that, PW7, Bichitra Nanda Sahoo, Manager of the hotel 'My Inn', had also corroborated the deposition of DRI officers as regards the recovery of the currency notes from the T.V set, which was found placed inside a cardboard box in room no.105 of hotel 'My Inn' in the area of Paharganj, New Delhi on 20.05.2012. The currency notes so recovered were taken to Currency Notes Press at Nasik, Maharashtra and PW23, Jitender Kumar Chaudhary, who was working as Assistant Works Manager at S C No.01/13 16/34 17 Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra had examined the said currency notes and proved his report Ex.PW3/D to the effect that all the currency notes examined by him were 100% fake notes.
33. On behalf of the accused, reliance was placed by Ld. Defence Counsel on a case decided by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court titled as Janardhan Show Vs The State, reported as 1990 Cri.L.J.2449, which was a case U/S 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. Accused was a rickshaw puller and was found carrying railway property in his rickshaw. It was held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that accused was acting as a mere porter and was carrying articles and was taken to have accounted for his lawful possession. The accused in the said case was held entitled to acquittal.
34. Relying upon the case titled as Janardhan Show Vs The State (Supra), it has been argued on behalf of the accused in the present case that custody of the said T.V and the said hidden fake Indian currency notes by the accused, was not more than that of a carrier of the articles, bringing the articles given to him at Bangkok, which were to be handed over to S C No.01/13 17/34 18 another person at New Delhi. The facts of the two cases cannot be held to be having similarities, as accused in the present case was not in the business of doing the business of carrier or transporter of goods. Rickshaw puller or any other carrier for that matter, is in the business of transporting goods. Accused Adarsh Pal Singh was not expected to carry goods belonging to the person who was not properly known to him, as he was not able to account for the person or other particulars, by whom the T.V was handed over to him at Bangkok or the person whom the said cardboard box containing the T.V was to be handed over. Even, no contact number was available with him of the person by whom the cardboard box was handed over to him or the person to whom it was to be delivered. Possession of the fake Indian currency notes by the accused in the circumstances, cannot be held to be that of a carrier alone. The case law being relied upon on behalf of accused is not going to help him in any manner.
35. On behalf of the accused, reliance has also been placed by Ld. Defence Counsel on a case titled as Maharaj Prithvisinghji Bhimsinghji Vs State of Bombay AIR 1960 S C No.01/13 18/34 19 Supreme Court 483, which was a case for offence punishable Under Sections 65(a) and 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 on the allegations of the appellant travelling in a first class compartment from Delhi to Abu Road Station wherein the accused luggage, after it has been put in a jeep, the luggage was searched and on search 76 bottles of foreign liquor were found in the trunks belonging to the accused as well as two half consumed bottles, one of which was in an attache case. The ownership of the luggage was admitted by the accused, but his case was that he did not know the existence of those numerous bottles of foreign liquor in his trunks or his attache case stating that it was his servant Gangaram Makerji, who always pack and unpack his trunks and that he himself has nothing to do with it in that respect. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter that the circumstantial evidence in the case was not of that kind from which the only inference that could reasonably be drawn, was that the appellant had knowledge of the contents of his luggage and that he had accordingly possessed and imported an intoxicant in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, S C No.01/13 19/34 20 1949. The facts of the case being relied upon also does not help the case of the accused, as he cannot be expected in the role of a carrier alone, as has been discussed earlier and also, that he cannot be expected in a situation wherein his luggage was being held by someone else on his behalf. There was no reason for him to carry cardboard box with him, in case, he was not aware of the contents of the same, particularly from the persons who were strangers to him to a greater extent, as he was not even having their addresses, their contacts or knowing their nationality and that was, when he himself was a traveller in Bangkok on a tourist visa.
36. Ld. Defence Counsel has also placed reliance on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Sanjay Dutt Vs State through CBI, Bombay reported as 1994 (3) Crime 344 (SC), wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 20, that the word 'possession' is not preceded by any adjective like 'knowingly', yet it is common ground that in the context, the word 'possession' must mean possession with the requisite mental element i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without the awareness of the nature of such S C No.01/13 20/34 21 possession. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that there was a mental element in the concept of possession and accordingly, the ingredients of 'possession' in Section 5 of the TADA Act means conscious possession.
37. As regards the evidentiary value of statement U/S 108 of the Customs Act being Ex.PW4/C, Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs Moni and Anr. Reported as 2010 (1) Crimes 359 s (Del.) wherein it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that a statement being the sole basis of the prosecution, recorded by the Customs Authorities, FERA Authorities or by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which stand retracted and there was no corroboration of the same, the statement by itself was not sufficient to record conviction of the accused. It was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that statement U/S 108 of the Customs Act recorded on 21.05.2012 was retracted by the accused on 24.05.2012 when he was produced in the matter before the Court and so, the statement alone is not sufficient to hold that the accused was in conscious possession with the requisite knowledge of S C No.01/13 21/34 22 the fake Indian currency notes in the T.V while travelling from Bangkok to New Delhi on 20.05.2012.
38. Ld. Defence counsel has also relied upon another case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Chaganraju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported as AIR 1980 Supreme Court 477, which was a case under Gold (Control) Act (1968) and Section 85 and Section 135 of the Customs Act. The facts of the case were that the gold articles were recovered from a pit which was dug somewhere in the compound of the house of the accused in that case. The house was raided by the Customs Authority on 06.02.1969 and from a site discovered by them, gold articles were found. When questioned, accused in the said case stated that he was not knowing about the gold or the person who had concealed the gold. It was in the morning hours around 11.00 A.M. Later on, at about 3.00 P.M on 06.02.1969 itself, one Ganeshlal Sopaji on interrogation admitted that he had come to the house of accused in the afternoon, dug the ground and had put the articles thereunder. This statement of Ganeshlal Sopaji was made in the presence of the accused, who was appellant before Hon'ble Supreme S C No.01/13 22/34 23 Court, to which, he stated that Ganeshlal Sopaji had hidden the articles in the vacant side of his house, further stating that Ganeshlal Sopaji had not taken his permission for hiding the gold in his house. In the circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that not much can be made out of the second statement of the accused, which does not at all prove that the appellant had any knowledge that the gold was buried in his house and the knowledge of the gold referred to in the statement of appellant Ex.P25 came to light only after he had heard Ganeshlal Sopaji stating about concealing the gold in his house. Relying upon the case, it was argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there were two statements of the accused in the present case. One, as per the version in Panchnama Ex.PW1/C to the effect that he was not aware of the articles (fake Indian currency notes) hidden in the T.V set, which was given to him and the second version in the statement U/S 108 of the Customs Act Ex.PW4/C to the effect that he was told by Aslam while handing over the cardboard box in the morning of 20.05.2012 in his restaurant at Bangkok that cardboard box was containing a T.V set wherein fake Indian currency notes S C No.01/13 23/34 24 were hidden covered with a carbon paper in order to avoid detection by the XRay machine at the Bangkok Airport as well as at the New Delhi Airport. It was thus, argued that the second statement being Ex.PW4/C wherein the accused is stated to have been telling DRI officers that he was aware of the fact that fake Indian currency notes were hidden in the T.V set, should not be given much value and discarded, since fake Indian currency notes had already been recovered. The facts of Chaganraju's case (Supra) being relied upon on behalf of the accused are not similar to the facts of the case. In Chaganraju's case, the appellant had denied his consent to Ganeshlal Sopaji for hiding any articles inside his house in both the statements made and only improvement in the second statement was that he had stated that Ganeshlal Sopaji had hidden the articles in the vacant side of his house, which was not relied upon by Hon'ble Supreme Court to prove that the appellant was having any knowledge that the gold was buried in his house as same has come to light only after he had heard Ganeshlal Sopaji stating about concealing the gold in his house.
39. It was recovery of 3183 number of fake currency notes S C No.01/13 24/34 25 of Rs.500/ denomination valued at Rs.15,91,500/. The statement Ex.PW4/C given by the accused U/S 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence against him where he has told PW4 Sh.R.Roy, Sr.Intelligence Officer, DRI that he had carried the fake Indian currency notes concealed in the T.V set for a sum of Rs.12,000/. This has also to be considered in the light of the fact that accused Adarsh Pal Singh had gone to Bangkok on a tourist visa.
40. Earlier to that also, accused Adarsh Pal Singh, had been to Bangkok on tourist visa. PW11 Damanpreet Singh, who was working with M/s Onkar Travels has testified that he used to handle and issue tickets while working with M/s Onkar Travels, and earlier with M/s Blue Sky. PW11 Damanpreet Singh, further testified that he had done the reservation of one air ticket in the name of Adarsh Pal Singh from Delhi BangkokDelhi on 23.03.2012 and travelling date of the ticket was 25.03.2012. Earlier ticket Ex. PW11/A was proved by PW11 Damanpreet Singh, which was issued by PW17 Pawan Duggal. PW17 Pawan Duggal, was also examined in the case, and has testified that air ticket Ex. PW11/A as well as another S C No.01/13 25/34 26 ticket Ex. PW11/B, were issued by him while working for M/s Onkar Travels. Ex. PW11/B were the DelhiBangkok Delhi ticket for 30.12.2011. PW16 Kamaldeep Singh, was working as Supervisor in Hotel 'My Inn', has also testified that accused Adarsh Pal Singh had come to their hotel to stay on 3/4 occasions. PW24 Ram Chander, ACP, FRRO, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, has proved the Disembarkation Card of accused Adarsh Pal Singh dated 20.05.2012 Ex. PW24/C to the effect that the particulars thereon were filled up by the passenger himself. PW24, Ram Chander, has also testified that the passenger Adarsh Pal Singh had arrived in India on 20.05.2012 by Air India Flight No. 333, and photograph of passenger Adarsh Pal Singh Ex. PW24/D, taken at the time of his arrival, was also proved by him. Further, PW24 Ram Chander, has proved the Arrival Card dated 23.01.2012 Ex. PW24/G of Adarsh Pal Singh, who had arrived in India vide Air India Flight No. 333 on 23.01.2012. These witnesses have thus testified to the fact that accused Adarsh Pal Singh was a frequent visitor to Bangkok. Accused Adarsh Pal Singh, in his statement Ex. PW4/C, has stated that he had gone to Bangkok S C No.01/13 26/34 27 in December 2011, again in March 2012, on a tourist visa, and had stated that he was trying to establish himself in restaurant business in Bangkok, as his brotherinlaw was earlier having a restaurant in the name of 'Spicy Maharaja', and his tourist visa was expiring on 23.05.2012, and he had come to India on 20.05.2012 for extension/issuance of Visa to visit Bangkok again. No evidence has been adduced by the accused in his defence.
41. On behalf of the accused, Ld. Defence Counsel, has also relied upon a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Javed Masood and Anr.Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as 2010 Criminal Law Journal 2020, which was regarding a hostile witness. It was a case under Section 302 IPC wherein one prosecution witness had testified that all eyewitnesses had arrived at spot only after body of deceased was removed by police. The said prosecution witness was an independent witness and the witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the prosecution witness who was supporting defence, was not declared hostile by the prosecution, it was permissible for the S C No.01/13 27/34 28 accused to rely on such evidence.
42. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied on "Javed Massod's"
case(supra) for the reason that PW16 Kamaldeep Singh, who was working in hotel 'My Inn' as a Supervisor, has testified that when accused Adarsh Pal Singh had come to their hotel in month of June or July 2012, he was given Room No. 107 in the hotel. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that accused Adarsh Pal Singh was staying in Room No. 107 and not in Room No. 105, and since PW16 Kamaldeep Singh, was not declared hostile on behalf of the prosecution, so the contention of the accused that he was staying in Room No. 107 and not in Room No. 105, should be trusted, and so, the recovery effected is doubtful. The accused himself has not disputed the fact that he had arrived in India from Bangkok on 20.05.2012, alongwith a cardboard box. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C, accused Adarsh Pal Singh, has disputed the fact that recovery of fake Indian currency notes were made in his presence, but that was not the case, while the witnesses of the prosecution were being examined in their crossexamination, and the stand taken on behalf of the accused throughout was S C No.01/13 28/34 29 that, he was handed over the said cardboard box by a person at Bangkok airport for carrying it to New Delhi, without disclosing the fact that fake Indian currency notes were hidden inside the T.V, placed in cardboard box. There is sufficient evidence on the record, independently of the statement of the accused Ex. PW4/C to the effect that recovery of fake Indian currency notes Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P1/3218, was effected from the T.V, which was found inside the cardboard box, which was carried by the accused Adarsh Pal Singh from Bangkok to New Delhi. PW1 Ajay Bhasin, IO, DRI, PW4 R. Roy, SIO, PW6 Avdhesh Chander Sharma, IO, DRI, PW9 Deepak Kumar Mangotra, IO,DRI, PW12 Rajpal Singh, IO, DRI, have testified to the effect that. Apart from that, Manager of the Hotel 'My Inn', PW7 Bachitra Nanda Sahoo, has also testified as regards the search of Room No. 105, conducted in his presence where accused Adarsh Pal Singh was staying. PW21 Mohd. Mushtaq, a Waiter at the hotel, who was joined in the DRI team, as an independent witness, has also testified as regards the recovery of fake Indian currency notes Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P1/3218 from Room No. 105. PW23 Jitender Kumar S C No.01/13 29/34 30 Chaudhary, working as Assistant Works Manager at Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra, has also proved his report Ex. PW3/D, to the effect that all the currency notes Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P1/3218, examined by him were found to be 100 % fake notes.
43. Section 489C IPC reads as under:
"489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, 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".
44. In view of the above discussion, the fact of accused Adarsh Pal Singh, being found in possession of fake Indian currency notes Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P1/3218, has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and same in a way is corroborated by the statement Ex. PW4/C made by accused Adarsh Pal Singh to PW4 R. Roy, Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, on 21.05.2012, under Section 108 of Customs Act. S C No.01/13 30/34
31 Recovery was of a sufficiently large quantity of fake Indian currency notes, recovered from the possession of the accused, the status of the accused more than just a carrier, accused visiting Bangkok frequently, the accused having failed to explain his possession of fake currency notes or of his being in possession of the same, without knowledge. Thus, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 489C IPC, are made out against the accused Adarsh Pal Singh, of his being in possession of Ex. P1/36 to Ex. P1/3218 on 20.05.2012 with the knowledge of same, being counterfeit Indian currency notes, also knowing that same may be used as genuine, which was recovered at hotel 'My Inn' situated at 901,Chandiwali Lane, Paharganj, New Delhi, where he was staying in Room no. 105 on 20.05.2012.
45. Since the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC has not been made out or proved against the accused person, there is no question of any conspiracy between the accused Adarsh Pal Singh, and any other person.
46. Personal bond and a surety bond has been given by the accused as per Section 437A CrPC.
S C No.01/13 31/34
32
47. In view of the above, accused Adarsh Pal Singh is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC. However, he is acquitted of charge for offence punishable under Section 489B IPC r/w Section 120 IPC.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 25.02. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/13 32/34
33
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI Sessions Case No. 01/13 RC Number : 220/2012/E/0014EOU VI/EOII/CBI, New Delhi.
CBI Vs Adarsh Pal Singh
S/o Manmohan Singh
R/o 3/67, Kohli Garden,
Civil Lines, Haldwani,
P.S. Kotwali, Haldwani,
District Nainital, Uttarakhand.
Under Section: 120B IPC r/w Section 489B & 489C IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Convict Adarsh Pal Singh, who has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC, was heard on point of sentence.
2. Sh. Sunil Ahuja, Ld. Defence Counsel, had submitted that convict, Adarsh Pal Singh, is having clean antecedents, having never been involved in any criminal matter earlier. Request is made for a lenient view, in view of the social S C No.01/13 33/34 34 background of convict, Adarsh Pal Singh, details of which are available on the record.
3. On behalf of the prosecution, Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI, had submitted that the convict was involved in an offence against the State and the Society and the allegations proved against the convict have adverse implications for the economy of the State and so, he be given an exemplary punishment.
4. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and submissions made on behalf of both the convict and the prosecution, convict Adarsh Pal Singh, is sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC. Convict shall have the benefits of provisions of Section 428 Cr. P.C. Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence, be given to the convict, Adarsh Pal Singh, free of charge. Jail Superintendent be informed accordingly.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 26.02. 2014 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC Act)
DELHI
S C No.01/13 34/34