Delhi District Court
State vs . Allauddin And Ors. on 31 March, 2011
State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Date of Institution : 21.03.2007
Judgment reserved on : 30.03.2011
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2011
SC No. 44/08
ID No. 0243R0178422007
FIR No. 710/06
PS Cannaught Place
State Vs. 1. Allauddin
S/O Mohd. Fazal
R/O A9192 Ram Nagar
Nabi Karim Delhi
2. Mohd. Wasim
S/O Mohd. Mustkeem
R/O H.No. 7557 Gali
Panchakki near badi
Masjid Kasabpura
Sadar Bazar, Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Allauddin and Mohd. Wasim have been sent to stand trial for the commission of offences punishable u/s 489C and 489D read with section 34 IPC registered at the police station 1 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
Connaught Place vide FIR no. 710/06.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.12.06 at about 2:00 pm, an informer came in the office of AATS New Delhi and informed SI Daya Chand that Mohd Wasim and Allauddin involved in the business of counterfeit currency notes would come at Palika Bazar gate no. 1 in between 3.00 to 3.30 pm to deliver fake currency notes to someone. SI Daya Chand produced the informer before the Inspector Sudesh Kumar who also verified the information and directed SI Daya Chand to take action.
3. A raiding party comprising of SI Daya Chand, Ct. Ramesh, Ct. Naresh, Ct. Dharmender, Ct. Rajesh, Ct. Mohan and Ct. Hawa Singh went to the spot in a private qualis with the informer. They reached there at about 2.30 pm where SI requested 45 public persons to join but none agreed. At about 3.00 pm the accused persons came in the park of the Palika Bazar near gate no. 1 and started waiting for the person who had to take delivery. At about 3.30 pm when they started retreating, SI with the help of his staff apprehended them. From the right pocket of pant of accused Wasim 100 notes of Rs. 500 denomination bearing identical number 0AF 415913 were recovered. From accused Allauddin, 25 notes of Rs. 1000 denomination bearing 2 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
identical number 5AB 770255 were recovered. On inquiry, they revealed that they had to deliver the notes to Rashid Khan and they print the notes on their computers. The fake currency notes were sealed in two pullandas with the seal of DCV and the seal after use was given to Ct Hawa Singh. A rukka was sent from the spot for registration of the case. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Naim Khan. He arrested both the accused persons who on interrogation disclosed of their involvement in the racket of making and using fake currency notes. Accused Allauddin took the police party to his house at A 9192, Ram Nagar, Nabi Karim and got recovered a monitor, CPU, scanner, key board, UPS, scissor with the help of which they used to print counterfeit currency notes. He also produced a packet containing 100 notes of Rs. 1000 denomination bearing the identical number 5AB 770255. Five pullandas were prepared and sealed with the seal of MN. Accused Wasim also took the police party to his house at 7557, Gali Panchakki, Kasabpura. From the first floor of the house, he got recovered a monitor, CPU, scanner, key board with the help of which he used to print the counterfeit currency notes. He also produced a white polythene which had 80 notes of Rs. 500 denomination bearing the number 4CW 820117 and 100 notes of Rs. 100 denomination bearing the number 9 HD 101161. Four pullandas were prepared and sealed with seal of MN. The pullandas were deposited in the 3 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
malkhana. The notes in the sealed packets were sent to Reserve Bank of India through Ct. Hawa Singh where the Treasurer, Cash Department after examination opined the currency notes not genuine. The notes were again sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik which also gave the similar report. The CPU was sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad. There the hard disks on examination were found to contain the scanned images of Indian Currency notes of various denominations. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
4. After taking cognizance of offence and supplying the copy of the charge sheet to the accused persons u/s 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of session which was allocated to this court. The predecessor of this court after hearing detailed arguments vide order dated 20/3/2008 made out a prima facie case against both the accused persons. They were charged u/s 489C and 489 D IPC for possessing fake currency notes of various denominations and instruments / equipments for the purpose of being used for forging and making counterfeit currency notes to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
While going through the file, it was transpired that the charge was not framed for the recovery of counterfeit notes from the house of 4 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
the accused persons. Hence, amended charge was framed on 30.03.2011 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty. It was submitted by the counsel for the accused that the factum of recovery of notes from the house of accused persons has already come in evidence so prosecution witnesses may not be called again for evidence after the amended charge. No further incriminating evidence came to record the supplementary statement of the accused persons nor the accused led further evidence in their defence.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Ld. APP also tendered the report of Currency Note Press, Ex. PX and the CFSL, Hyderabad Ex. C2 in evidence.
PW1 Sh. Devinder Kumar was the treasurer in RBI, Cash department before whom the sealed envelopes containing currency notes were opened by Ct. Hawa Singh. He on examination gave his opinion Ex. PW1/A that the currency notes were not genuine. The notes were also produced before him which he identified as Ex. P1 to P3 colly.
PW2 Ct. Mohan Singh accompanied the SI Daya Chand at Palika Bazar and witnessed the recovery and the seizure proceedings. He also went to the house of the accused persons and witnessed the recovery of equipments and fake currency notes from their possession. 5 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
The case property was produced before him which he identified as Ex. P1 to P12.
PW3 Ct. Siripal had taken the two sealed pullandas of CPU bearing the seal of MN to CFSL, Hyderabad vide RC no. 10/21.
PW4 Ct.Hawa Singh was the witness of recovery of fake currency notes and the equipments at both the places. He received the seal after use from SI Daya Chand and had taken the packets containing counterfeit currency notes to RBI for opinion, PW5 Ct. Ramesh Kumar was also the member of the raiding team which conducted the raid and effected the recovery at both the places.
PW6 ASI Devinder recorded the FIR ExPW6/A on receipt of rukka from Ct. Ramesh and handed over further investigation to ASI Mohd. Naim.
PW7 ASI Mohd. Naim did the investigation after the registration of the case. He prepared the site plan ExPW7/A, collected the relevant documents and the case property, arrested the accused, interrogated them, recorded their disclosure statements ExPW4/G and ExPW4/H and did further recovery. He also sent the notes and the CPU to Press Currency notes Press, Nasik and CFSL Hyderabad respectively for expert opinion.
6 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
PW8 HC Satinder was present in the police station when Ct. Hawa Singh brought the envelopes and the opinion given by the Treasurer RBI. The packets were resealed by ASI Mohd Naim and deposited in the malkhana of which ASI made the entry Ex. Pw8/A. PW9 Ct. Rajesh was also the member of raiding team. PW10 SI Daya Chand had received the information and led the team. He recovered the fake currency notes from the possession of the accused persons from near gate no. 1 of Palika Bazar.
6. Both the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they controverted the entire prosecution case and pleaded their innocence. They stated that they did not make any disclosure statement rather the police had taken their signatures on the various written or semi written papers without disclosing their contents. They also denied the recovery and using fake counterfeit currency notes as genuine.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by ld APP for the State and Ld. counsel Sh. Kamal J.S. Mann for both the accused persons and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. Ld counsel for the accused contended that as per the 7 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
information, the accused had to come at the parking area of Palika Bazar but the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused were apprehended from the park even the parking area was not shown in the site plan. Ld counsel further contended that no public witness was joined at both the places to witness the proceedings though available. Even the driver of the qualis was not made witness. The investigating agency did not take print from the CPU allegedly recovered from the house search to find out whether the fake currency notes could be printed from the computer. Ld counsel further stated that the pulladas do not bear the signature of accused and it is a case of planted recovery to falsely implicate the accused persons.
9. Ld APP on the contrary argued that the accused were apprehended on a secret information which was very specific qua both the accused persons that they would come near gate no1. of Palika bazar to deliver fake currency notes to someone. Ld APP further stated that from the possession of the accused persons, counterfeit currency notes were recovered and they also got recovered the instruments with the help of which they used to make counterfeit currency notes. Ld APP further stated that the notes and the instruments were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik and CFSL Hyderabad which reports are also against the accused. Ld APP stated that the efforts were made to 8 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
join public persons but none agreed to join. The place of recovery has been shown in the site plan and it is not a case of planted recovery.
10. I have considered the rival contentions.
11. In the instant case, Pw10 had received the information which he recorded vide DD no. 5 Ex. Pw10/A as per which Mohd Wasim and Allauddin involved in the business of counterfeit notes would come at the park behind gate no. 1 of Palika Bazar in between 3.00 to 3.30 pm to make the delivery of fake currency notes to someone. Pw10 has stated that the accused were apprehended from the park of Palika Bazar in front of gate no. 1. Even in the site plan Ex. Pw7/A the accused have been shown to have been apprehended at the park near gate no.1 of Palika Bazar which fact is also stated by the other prosecution witnesses. I do not find force in the contention of Ld defence counsel that as per the information that the accused had to come at the parking. The information was very specific qua the park, location of which has been shown in the site plan Ex. Pw7/A.
12. Pw10 has stated that after getting the information, he produced the informer before the Inspector who on getting satisfied directed him to conduct raid. He stated that he with his team went to 9 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
the spot in a private qualis arranged by him from M/s. Rajasthan Travels. Admittedly prosecution did not join the driver of the Palika Bazar but it is also relevant to note that the vehicle was parked at the parking of the Palika Bazar but the accused were apprehended from the park. That could have been the reason for not joining the qualis driver during the raid. In the instant case, proceedings were also witnessed by Pw2, Pw4, Pw5 and Pw9 besides Pw10. No doubt the testimony of independent witness inspires more confidence but it is equally settled that the conviction can also be based on the testimony of police officials if found to be consistent and cogent. I get support from the case of Delias Christopher v. Customs 2004(3) JCC 147. It is not the case that no effort was made to join public persons at the time of raid. Pw10 and other prosecution witnesses have stated that on the spot 45 passersby were requested to join but none agreed. The possibility and availability of a public witness for joining investigation is a fanciful myth like meeting of the sky at the horizon. The near you go, the far it becomes and the ultimate meeting point never reaches. The public witness now a days has become a rare commodity. No one is ready to join police investigation either because of the fear of the accused or because of the inconvenience to be suffered in attending the courts. That being the position non joining of public persons during the raid is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
10 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
13. Pw10 has stated that at about 3:00 pm the accused came from the side of gate no. 1 at the park where they waited for the person who had who take delivery of counterfeit notes from them. He stated that at about 3.30 pm when they were about to leave, since the person had not come by then, at the pointing out of the informer he with the help of his staff apprehended both the accused and from their search he recovered the fake currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 denomination bearing the identical number vide seizure memo Ex. Pw4/A and ExPW4/B. He stated that the seal after use was given to Ct. Hawa Singh which fact is also stated by Pw4 in his testimony. He has categorically denied the suggestion that no recovery of counterfeit currency notes was effected from the possession of the accused or he had taken the signatures of the accused persons on various blank and semi written documents by use of force without disclosing their contents. Pw2, Pw4, Pw6 and Pw9 have fully corroborated his testimony on the point of recovery of counterfeit notes from the possession of accused persons at Palika Bazar park. They were tested at the anvil of cross examination but no material contradictions came in their testimony to doubt on their presence or their veracity. The counterfeit notes were produced before them which they identified correctly.
11 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
14. During arguments learned counsel pointed out that the sealed packet containing fake currency notes were sent to RBI where after the opinion the packets were handed over to Pw4 in unsealed condition which were resealed by Pw7 and deposited in the malkhana. No explanation was given by the prosecution why the notes instead sending to some laboratory were sent to RBI. Further the chances of tampering with the counterfeit currency notes in these circumstances cannot be ruled out. I do not agree with this contention as in the seizure memo Ex. Pw4/A, Pw4/B, Pw2/A and Pw2/B the serial number of the seized notes have been given. Pw1 the Treasurer RBI in his testimony has given the serial number of the notes which he had examined on the basis of which he gave his report Ex. Pw1/A. Even the Currency Notes Press report Ex. PX contained the details of the serial number of the notes sent for opinion. On comparing the two, I do not find any difference in the serial number of the notes. So there was no question of their tampering. Even otherwise, the notes were produced in the Court before the witnesses which they correctly identified being the same counterfeit currency notes which were seized from the accused persons. As regards the contention, why the notes were sent to RBI for opinion, perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveals that after seeking opinion from RBI, the notes were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik and as per the report Ex. PX the referred notes were 12 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
found to be counterfeit notes. Thus sending notes to RBI does not prove fatal to the case of prosecution.
15. Pw10 has stated that after sending the rukka, he handed over further investigation to Pw7. Ld counsel has drawn the attention of this court on the rukka Ex. Pw6/B as per which Pw10 had requested to entrust further investigation to Pw7. No doubt Pw10 should not have mentioned this fact in the rukka but it is also to be noted that it is the prerogative of the SHO / Inspector to entrust further investigation and in the instant case Pw7 has specifically stated that further investigation was marked to him by the Inspector. It is not the case that Pw7 had come at the spot on the directions of Pw10 rather he was directed by the Inspector.
16. Pw7 has stated that after getting the relevant documents and the custody of the accused persons, he interrogated them who made disclosure Ex. Pw4/G and ExPW4/H and in pursuant thereto they took them to their houses and got recovered the instruments and some more fake currency notes from there which he seized vide memo Ex. Pw2/B and Pw2/A after sealing with the seal of MN. Pw3 had taken the sealed pullanda containing the CPU to CFSL, Hyderabad. As per the report Ex. C2 the hard disks in the CPU were found to contain the scanned 13 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
images of Indian currency notes of various denominations. The CFSL report also shows that the pullandas had the seal of MN which fact was also stated by Pw7 that he had sealed the CPU with the seal of MN. Nothing came in the testimony of prosecution witnesses that the hard disc / CPU before it reached the CFSL was tampered with. As per settled proposition of law, the hard disc on which the informations are recorded are the documents within the meaning of Section 173(5)(a) r/w Section 207 (v) of Cr.P.C. It is admissible in evidence if the possibility of tempering with or erasure is ruled out. No doubt in the instant case, the seizing officer did not collect the prints at the time of seizing of hardwares / CPU but he had sealed the same at the same time and as per the report Ex. C2, the hard disc in the CPU had the scanned images of Indian Currency notes of various denominations. The accused at no stage raised doubt on the reports Ex. PX and ExC2. Further the testimony of Pw1 Treasurer RBI also remained unrebutted. Facts and circumstances lead to an irresistible conclusion that both the accused were involved in preparing / making counterfeit currency notes with the help of the CPU / equipments, recovered from their possession / at their instance.
17. It was contended by Ld counsel that no public witness was joined when the house search was made. Perusal of testimony of Pw7 14 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
reveals that the accused after the disclosure statement had taken the police party to their houses and got recovered the equipments and the fake currency notes. PW7 has admitted that the houses of the accused persons were surrounded by the other houses. He stated that he had requested the residents of other houses to join the proceedings but none agreed. So it cannot be said that he did not make any effort to join public persons on the spot. The other prosecution witnesses have fully corroborated and supported the case of prosecution on the aspect of recovery of equipments and counterfeit notes from the houses of the accused persons.
18. Now coming to the contention that the documents do not bear the signature of the accused persons. Perusal of the documents reveal that disclosure statement bears the signature of the accused as well as the witnesses. The recovery memo also bears their signatures.
19. It was pointed out by ld counsel that the investigating agency did not collect any document to connect the accused with the place of recovery. Admittedly no such document was collected by Pw7 but it has come in the testimony of prosecution witnesses that the accused persons had taken the police party to their house in pursuance of their disclosure and got recovered the equipments and the fake currency 15 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
notes from there. Further the witnesses were cross examined at length but they remained consistent and cogent. It is not the case that the police party had animus against them or were interested in their false implication. Further the accused persons at no stage stated that they have no connection with the houses in question. In the case of Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP AIR 1995 SC 2472 it was observed :
"In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
20. As regards contradictions, Pw4 has stated that Pw10 had also gone to the house of the accused persons which fact is not stated by the other witnesses. Pw7 has stated that they had gone to the house of the accused in two TSRs but the other prosecution witnesses stated that they went in the qualis. On considering the totality of facts and circumstances, no much value can be pinned on these contradictions.
21. In Bhargavan and others vs. State of Kerala (9) ADSC 403 it was held, ''normal discrepancy is expected, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. This does not corrode the credibility of the 16 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
witness.'' The human memory is vicissitudinous. In Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, it was observed, ''The errors due to the lapse of memory may be given due allowance.'' It was held in the case of Siddiqua Vs. NCB 137 (2007) DLT 500 that a small contradiction here and there could not make the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. Minor discrepancies are very natural to occur. The court has to consider the entire evidence as has been adduced before it and then come to the conclusion. Minute details of incidents with the passage of time go out of memory. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Sometimes the witness cannot anticipate the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
22. In the case of Krishna Mochi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2002(2) CC Cases (SC) 58 it was held that : It is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff - when chaff can be separated from grain, it could be open to the court to convict the accused notwithstanding that evidence is found difficult to prove guilt of other accused persons - falsehood of particular material witness or material particular would not seclude it from the beginning to end - the maxim 17 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar".
23. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered opinion that both the accused were in possession of counterfeit currency notes of various denominations at Palika Bazar who also got recovered some more counterfeit currency notes and the equipments / instruments from their houses with the help of which they used to prepare / make fake currency notes. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore hold both the accused guilty and convict them of the offence punishable u/s. 489C and 489D r.w.s. 34 IPC.
Announced in open Court on this 31st day of March, 2011 (Sanjiv Jain) Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi Patiala House : New Delhi 18 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : SPECIAL JUDGE -
NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
FIR No. 710/06PS Connaught Place ID No. 02403R0178422007 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide separate judgement, both the accused namely Mohd.
Wasim and Allauddin have been convicted of the offence punishable u/s 489 (C) and 489(D) IPC.
2. Ld. APP has prayed for maximum sentence provided under the statute submitting that the convicts were involved in making counterfeit currency notes and were also found in possession of the counterfeit currency notes intending to use the same as genuine. Ld. APP further submitted that the offence is serious in nature and it relates to the sovereignty and economy of the country.
3. Ld. Counsel Sh. Kamajeet Singh Maan for the convict Allauddin submitted that he has remained in custody for about 16 months, he is a young man aged 33 years and has a family to support comprising of his wife and six children. Except him, there is no one to look after their well being. Ld. counsel further submitted that the 19 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
convict does not have criminal antecedents and after release on bail, he was not involved in such kind of activities. Ld. counsel further submitted that he be given an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate.
4. For convict Mohd. Wasim Ld. counsel submitted that the convict is in custody from the date of arrest, he has undergone surgery, he is a young man aged 30 years and also has a family to support comprising of his wife and four children. Ld. counsel has requested for taking lenient view.
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kuldeep Singh 2004 Vol. 2 SCC 590 held :
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be unreally a futile exercise. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences of taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences in respect of such offence will result counter productive in the long run and against social interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of difference inbuilt in the sentencing system. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence.
7. The incident pertains to the year 2006. The Convict Mohd.
Wasim is in custody from the date of arrest. He has criminal 20 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
involvements in such like cases. Making counterfeit currency notes and keeping it with an intention to use as genuine is a serious offence. It not only affects the society but also has an adverse impact on the economy of the country. Although he has a family to support but facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant the court to take lenient view more particularly when the convict has involvement in number of such like cases.
8. Keeping his age, antecedents, facts and circumstances of the case I sentence the convict Wasim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000 in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable u/s 489 (D) IPC. I also sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000 in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable u/s 489 (C) IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
9. The convict Allauddin is aged 33 years. Except this case, he does not have any criminal antecedents. After release on bail, he did not indulge himself in such like activities. He has remanded in custody for about 16 months. Except him, there is no one to look after his family.
21 State Vs. Allauddin and ors.
10. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and the circumstances, antecedents and family background of the convict, I sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence punishable u/s 489 (D) IPC. I also sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.30,000 in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable u/s 489 (C) IPC.
11. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. They be given benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. The case property be confiscated to the State after the expiry of period of appeal/revision.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Sanjiv Jain)
on this 31st of March, 2011 Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi
Patiala House : New Delhi
22