Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Dr Rehan Baig on 12 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.525 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(UPPARPET P.S., BENGALURU)
THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP)
AND:
DR.REHAN BAIG
S/O LATE R.REHAMAN BAIG,
MAJOR, NO.4/1 SOUNDER'S ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
10.02.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, XXXV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND S.J. BENGALURU, ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.29 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 255, 256, 257, 258, 259,
419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 AND 475 OF IPC R/W
SECTION 120(B) OF IPC AND 63(B) OF KARNATAKA
STAMP ACT, 1957 AND UNDER SECTION 13(1)(d) R/W
SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 R/W 120(B) OF IPC AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT
OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELLED AGAINST HIM. THE
APPELLANT/STATE PRAYS THE ABOVE SAID ORDER MAY
BE SET-ASIDE.
*****
THIS CRL.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Judgment & order dated 10-2-2010 passed by the Special Judge, XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.155 of 2006 and other connected Sessions case Nos.462 of 2001, 430 of 2002, 557 of 2002, 558 of 2002, 31 of 2004 and 155 of 2006, acquitting accused No.29 the appellant herein for 3 the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 & 475 of IPC read with Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 63(B) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution has filed this appeal.
2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 313 witnesses and marked 1601 exhibits other than 597 Material Objects. The appeal herein is restricted only to the extent of the reasons assigned by the trial Court in acquitting accused No.29. Respondent- accused No.29 was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472 & 475 IPC read with Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 63(B) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant's counsel has restricted himself to the relevant facts and evidence 4 relatable to the respondent/accused. He contends that the trial court on considering the evidence on record has wrongly acquitted the respondent-accused. That, having come to the conclusion that the accused had a close relationship with the main accused namely, Accused No.13, the same is sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy. However, the trial Judge has committed an error in holding that none of the grounds urged by the prosecution against the accused would attract the charges levelled. Therefore, he seeks for interference.
3. On the other hand, Sri Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent disputes the same. He contends that there is absolutely no evidence to convict the respondent. That the trial Judge having considered all the material on record has rightly acquitted him and hence no interference is called for.
5
4. Heard learned counsels' and examined the records.
5. The trial Court while considering the case of the respondent, dealt with it in paragraphs 494 to 496 and 506 of its judgment. The case made out by the prosecution is that the accused No.29 was involved in the illegal activity of printing and marketing of counterfeit stamps in Bengaluru and other places of Karnataka. The same was being done with the association of accused No.13 and others, eversince the year 1997. That the respondent/accused induced PW-232, Sri Syed Sajjid to obtain a stamp vending licence in his name and collected all the required documents and made him to finance for opening of a bank account. That he took the signatures of P.W.232 on a number of blank challans for getting the stamp papers from the Treasury, Bengaluru. The same was intended only to facilitate the crime syndicate to print and circulate counterfeit stamps. That in criminal conspiracy with the other accused, he used the services of 6 P.W.138, Sri Syed Ansar for getting the stamp vending licences. P.W.138, got the documents of 10 persons and with the connivance of P.W.23, Sri T.Thippaiah, the Revenue Inspector, 10 stamp vending licences in the name of fictitious persons were obtained. Therefore, it was urged that the accused in conspiracy with the others, facilitated the crime syndicate to print and circulate the counterfeit stamps. That in conspiracy with accused No.13, decided to run the firm in the name of M/s.Metro Corporation purported to be dealing with white kerosene oil, in order to launder illegal money generated by the sale of counterfeit stamps. He managed to get the licence for supply of white kerosene in the name of M/s.Metro Corporation, Bengaluru and by stating that accused No.13 is the proprietor, the premises No.12, Live N Style Apartment, Pottery Road, Bengaluru, was taken to run the office. For the said Firm a Current Account was opened. Huge sums of money were deposited in the account through various pay-in slips. The pay-in slips contained the signatures of the accused. That 7 the accused gave possession of the premises No.301, 3rd Floor, 5th Avenue, Brigade Road, Bengaluru, to accused No.13, to start a marketing office of M/s.Metro Corporation. M/s.Metro Corporation placed orders for printing and supplying of fake ISP (Indian Security Press), Bank rolls. That the Mobile Number-9845038384 of the accused was recovered from the possession of accused No.1, Sri Badruddin by the CCB police on 22.5.1999 in Crime No.176 of 1999 of R.T.Nagar, Police Station, Bengaluru. The charge sheet was filed against 6 accused and others. Therefore, it was contended by the prosecution, that the charges of conspiracy and of dealing with counterfeit stamps has been proved. However, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence.
6. The main evidence of the prosecution with reference to the accused herein, is that of P.Ws, 138 and 232 who did not support the case of the prosecution vis-à- vis the accused. P.Ws 91,99, 182, 275, 292, supported 8 the plea of the prosecution. Even though these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, the same is only to the extent that the accused facilitated in obtaining the stamp vending licences. Therefore, their evidences would not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the conspiracy and other charges. Mere facilitation in obtaining of the stamp vending licences, in our considered view, as rightly held by the trial Court, does not constitute an offence of conspiracy. Therefore, the said evidences would not support the case of the prosecution of conspiracy and other charges leveled against this accused/appellant.
7. On considering the evidences, it is clear that the case of conspiracy is not made out against the respondent/accused No.29. What emerges from the prosecution witnesses is that the accused assisted in obtaining the stamp vending licences. That he had an active role in the same. That he was in touch with the 9 main accused namely, accused No.13. That there are certain transactions so far as M/s.Metro Corporation is concerned. Even then it is not possible to deduce, that only because he assisted in procuring the stamp vending licence, that he was part of a greater conspiracy to misuse such licences. It is evident that he was assisting in obtaining a licence. However, he did not have knowledge, that obtaining of the licence would result in the accused misusing the stamp vending licence. The act has occurred subsequent to obtaining the stamp vending licence. Therefore, the role of the accused is only of acts in obtaining the licence. That itself would not attract any of the charges levelled, so far as this accused is concerned. It cannot be said that merely giving assistance in order to obtain a licence constitutes an act of counterfeit or manufacture or sale of the stamp papers. He had no role to play in the same.
10
8. Therefore, we find that there is absence of material in order to bring home the guilt, so far as this accused is concerned. Hence, we find that the reasonings assigned by the trial court are just and proper and are in tune with the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NIRMAL SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 by following the Judgment in the case of RAM LAL NARANG vs. STATE OF DELHI reported in (1979)2 SCC 322 held, that conspiracy may be a general one and a separate one, meaning thereby a larger conspiracy and a smaller one, which may develop in successive stages. For the aforementioned purpose, the conduct of the parties also assumes relevance. The evidence on record, does not indicate that the conduct of the respondent accused was towards a conspiracy. Mere enabling or obtaining of a licence cannot form an act of conspiracy. Accused No.13 11 came into possession of various material in furtherance to conspiracy. He purchased the machines, cars, two wheelers etc. The question really is whether assistance of the respondent accused was in furtherance of a larger conspiracy. The material on record does not indicate so.
10. Even otherwise this is an appeal by the prosecution against an order of acquittal. The order of acquittal requires to be considered on different principles. Only because, a second view is possible, it does not entail the appellate Court to take that view. There has to be compelling reasons, in order to reverse the findings recorded by the trial court namely, that the appreciation of various evidences of the trial Judge is so perverse, that the same calls for interference. We do not find any such perversity in the order of the trial court so far as this accused is concerned. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in the well considered order of the trial 12 Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE
Rsk/-