Bangalore District Court
The State Rep. By vs A-1 Ahamadulla 20 Yrs on 27 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT :Smt. M. LATHAKUMARI
M.A.,LL.M.
VI ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF Cr.P.C.
Case No. : CC.No.4171/2008
Date of offence : 5-9-2005
Complainant : The State rep. by
PSI of Halasuru Gate PS
Accused : A-1 Ahamadulla 20 Yrs
S/o Sheik Mehaboob
R/at No.63, Old Pension
Mohalla, Behind Vinayaka
Talkies, Mysore Road,
dBangalore.
Offence : U/s.258, 259, 260, 261, 465,
468, 471 and 420 r/w 34
of IPC.
Plea : Accused pleaded
not guilty
Final order : Accused No.1 is acquitted
Date of Order : 27-02-2016.
** ** **
2 CC.No.4171/2008
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
The Police Sub Inspector of Halasuru Gate
Police Station filed charge sheet against the
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable
U/s.258, 259, 260, 261, 465, 468, 471 and 420
r/w 34 of IPC, alleging that on 5-9-2005 at 11-
45pm while the complainant-CCB Inspector and his
staff on definite information that some persons
are selling counterfeit Government Stamp Papers,
went to the spot, took one person into their
custody who was walking there in the premises of
D.C. Canteen situated at K.G.Road, Taluk office,
it was found that the said person who is none
other the accused herein in possession of
counterfeit Government stamp paper with an
intention to sell the same by franking Rs.200/-,
Rs.100/- Rs.50/- and Rs.20/- on Rs.2/- stamp
papers forged seal of the Pandavapura,
Malavalli, Gandhinagar, Kengeri and Shidlaghatta
Sub Registrars with the help of accused No.2.
3 CC.No.4171/2008
It is further alleged that the accused No.1 was
in possession of counterfeit Government stamp
papers belongs to the Pandavapura, Malavalli,
Gandhinagar, Kengeri and Shidlaghatta Sub
Registrar knowing fully well that they have
forged the franking and Sub Registrars office
seals with an intention to sell the same and to
cheat the Government as well as General public
and used the said forged documents as if genuine
documents and tried to sell the forged documents
and thereby the accused have committed the
alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance for the alleged
offences, the accused No.1 appeared, enlarged on
bail. By the time the complainant police filed
this charge sheet accused No.2 was reported to
be dead. Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C complied. Charge is
framed against accused No.1, read over,
explained to him. Accused does not plead guilty
4 CC.No.4171/2008
for the alleged offences. Therefore the
prosecution in order to prove the charge leveled
against the accused, got examined 8 witnesses
and got marked 162 documents. Thereafter the
accused No.1 is examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, he
denied all the incriminating circumstances found
against him in the prosecution evidence, he has
not led defence evidence.
3. Arguments heard from both sides.
4. PW.1-Kadaraiah is retired sub registrar.
He has deposed before the court that in the year
2002-2007 he was serving as sub registrar at
Kengeri. During that time the Halasurugate
police has sent a letter to him to verify the
stamp papers and submit his report about
genuineness of the stamp papers. He has verified
the said stamp papers and franking seal, office
seal and officer signature thereon. He has
submitted his report, it is marked at EX.P-2,
5 CC.No.4171/2008
stamp papers are marked at EX.P-3 to EX.P-8. He
has stated that these stamp papers have not been
issued by his office, the paper containing the
model seal and signatures of his office are
marked at EX.P-9 and 10. In his cross
examination by the counsel for the accused he
has denied that without verifying his office
records he has submitted his report as per EX.P-
2. He has denied that to make convenient to the
police case he has submitted his report.
5. PW.2 R. Ramachandra deposes in
accordance with the version of PW.1. PW.3 PSI
deposes about the investigation done by him. The
oral testimony of PW.4 is not of much useful to
prosecution. PW.4 deposes that the franking seal
available on the document produced by concerned
police is pertaining to his Nelamangla Sub
Registrar office. PW.5 Syed Asgar Imam is
scientific officer, FSL, Bangalore. He has
6 CC.No.4171/2008
deposed that on 1-3-2007 the Halasurugate police
sent the stamp papers in this case for
examination and report. He has stated that he
has scientifically examined the questioned and
admitted seals and signature and he has came to
the conclusion that the questioned seal and
signatures do not tally with the admitted seal
and signatures, in this regard he has issued
report it is marked at EX.P-108 and reasons for
his opinion is marked at EX.P-109, the specimen
signature and seal of his office is marked at
EX.P-114 and questioned and specimen seals
enlargement prints are in Six sheets are marked
at EX.P-115 to 120. PW.6 Mohamed Abdul Haseeb
has deposed that in the year 2006 he was working
as Sub Registrar Bellur, Mandya District. He
has further deposed that the Halasurugate police
has sent stamp papers Ex.P-96 and 97 for
verification and its genuineness. He has
verified the stamp papers with the register of
7 CC.No.4171/2008
his office and find that stamp papers has not
been issued by his office and said documents
are marked at Ex.P-96 and Ex.P-97. He has
submitted covering letter is marked a Ex.P-121
and register extract as per Ex.P-122. In his
cross examination by counsel for accused he has
denied that he not verified any document and
submitted his report at the convenience of
police. PW.7 Police head constable speaks
about seizure mahazar Ex.P-11. PW.8 another head
constable speaks about requisition given by him
to FSL Office.
6. On perusal of material placed on
record, it is police case that the accused
forged sub register franking seals, office seal
and signatures of sub registrars on stamp papers
knowing fully well that these documents are not
genuine documents and cheated to the general
public as well as government, in this regard
8 CC.No.4171/2008
CW.1 deposes that accused No. 1 was having black
and yellow mixed rexine bag with him and police
official in presence of panch witnesses verified
the said rexine bag and found 97 stamp papers of
varies face value. Where as said rexine bag not
at all produced in this case. Further, the oral
testimony of PW2 who conducted the ride is not
substantiated by prosecution by examining
remaining independent panch witnesses. It is
the case of prosecution that PW1 has filed a
complaint and he has stated that he has seized
questioned stamp papers from the possession of
accused in the presence of pancha under seizure
panchanama and produced the same before the SHO.
However, to substantiate the alleged facts
neither the CW2 nor the seizure panchas CW4 & 5
come forward before the court to support the
case of the prosecution. Despite of grant of
several time to the prosecution, concerned
9 CC.No.4171/2008
police fails to secure there important
witnesses.
7. On perusal of material placed on
record, the evidence of PW1 to 8 is formal in
nature regarding their respective duties. From
their evidence it is not clear or proved before
the court that the questioned stamp papers have
been seized from the possession of accused in
the presence of pancha under seizure panchanama.
That apart the rexine bag alleged to have
possessed by accused is also not produced before
this Court. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to
8 does established the quilt against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. So, I am of the opinion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges leveled against the accused.
Consequently the accused No.1 is entitled for
acquittal.
10 CC.No.4171/2008
8. For the reasons stated above, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
Acting Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.258, 259, 260, 261, 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Consequently, he is acquitted from the said charges. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 27th day of February 2016).
(M. LATHAKUMARI) VI Addl.C.M.M. Bangalore city. Annexure
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 S. Kadaraiah
PW.2 R. Ramachandra
PW.3 Subbarao
PW.4 Puttaswamy
PW.5 Syed Asgar Imam
PW.6 Mohammed Abdul Haseeb
PW.7 C. Hanumanthaiah
11 CC.No.4171/2008
PW.8 Krishnappa
PW.9 M. Puttaswamy.
2.Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Letter
Ex.P-2 Report
Ex.P-3 to 8 Stamp papers
EX.P-9 Franking seal
Ex.P-10 Model signature
Ex.P-11 Panchanama
Ex.P-12 Complaint
EX.P-13 to 103 Stamp papers
EX.P-104 FIR
EX.P-105 to 107 Letters
EX.P-108 Report
EX.P-109 Reasons
EX.P-110 Enquiry answer
EX.P-111 Seal Impression & office
Seals of Bellur Sub
Registrar office
EX.P-112 Seal impression & office
Seals of Gandhinagar Sub Registrar office EX.P-113 Seal impression and office Seals of Nelamangala Sub Registrar office EX.P-114 Seal impression and office 12 CC.No.4171/2008 seals Kengeri Sub Registrar office EX.P-115 to Enlargement sheets of 120 specimen seals of Sub Registrars EX.P-121 Covering letter EX.P-122 Xerox copy of Register.
3. Material objects:
MO-1 Rs.30-00.
VI ADDL.C.M.M.BANGALORE CITY.
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) 13 CC.No.4171/2008 ORDER Acting Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.258, 259, 260, 261, 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
Consequently, he is acquitted from the said charges. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.14 CC.No.4171/2008 15 CC.No.4171/2008
(Judgment pronounced in the open court) ORDER (Vide Separate Order) VI Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore.