Delhi District Court
This Criminal Appeal U/S 374 Cr.Pc Has ... vs State Of U.P on 10 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. T.S. KASHYAP
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Appeal No. : 21/2012
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0034512012
In the matter of
ABDUL KARIM LAD SAB TELGI
S/o Mr. Lad Sab Telgi
R/o Flat No. 5, 1st Shirin Manzil,
Colaba Road, Mumbai,
Presently at Bangalore Central Jail.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
E.O.U. (V)
5th & 6th Floor, Block No. 3,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. .........Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.02.2012 Date of reserving the Judgment in Appeal : 06.10.2012 Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2012 JUDGMENT IN APPEAL
1. This criminal appeal u/s 374 Cr.PC has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned order on sentence dated 03.08.2010, passed by Ld. ACMM, in case RC No. 12 EOU/2004, PS CBI Lodhi Road, whereby convict (appellant herein) was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years for each offence u/s 420/258/259/260 IPC as well as section 120-B IPC Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 1 of 6 pages and was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5 lacs for each of the said offences, in default in payment of fine, convict (appellant herein) shall also have to further undergo SI for a period of one year for each offence respectively.
2. I have heard submissions from Ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as from Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI and gone through the record.
3. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel that appellant has been suffering from various health complications including AIDS and needs extra care and medication; that disparity in sentence caused injustice to the family members of the appellant; that section 428 Cr.PC permits the convict to get the benefit of period already undergone by him in jail and that Ld. Trial Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in a judicious manner and therefore, prayed that amount of fine be reduced and the sentence already suffered by him in jail be avoided. Reliance has been placed on the authorities reported as under :
1. Sone Lal Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (1) Crimes 65 (All.).
2. M.Balasubramanian Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police and Anr., 2012 (2) Crimes 401 (Mad.).
3. Manish Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 (2) Crimes 407 (Del.).
4. The appeal has been contested by the CBI by filing its reply and on behalf of CBI, Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present appeal has been filed against the conviction on the plea of guilt by the appellant. The appellant alongwith his co-accused Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 2 of 6 pages persons have caused huge loss to the exchequer and several cases have been registered against them and in the present case, as per prosecution case, accused Abdul Karim Telgi (appellant herein) in connivance with the Abdul Gafoor Mujahid, Anand g. Thorat @ Anand, Sachin Munna and Ashfaq had floated a company by the name of M/s Prime Services located at 803, Devika Tower, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi, during the year 1997/1998 for unauthorizedly trading and sale of counterfeit stamps/non-judicial stamp papers in various parts of Delhi and adjoining areas. It is alleged that a lease agreement with the owner of premises in respect of above said company at 803, Devika Tower, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi, was signed by Abdul Gafoor Mujahid on the instructions of Abdul Karim Telgi. Abdul Gafoor Mujahid and Mujahiddeen were in charge of Prime Services Office located at above address. Abdul Gafoor Mujahid opened a current account No. 10731 in the name of Prime Services with Punjab National Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi in the year 1998 wherein the sale proceeds of counterfeit stamps worth Rs. 70 lakhs were deposited by way of cheques issued by the purchasers. It is alleged that another office of Prime Services was opened at New Friends Colony where Anand G. Thorat was in-charge of M/s. Prime Services. Anand G. Thorat and Ashfaq Mulla later withdrew most of the money from the aforesaid account of Prime Services. On the basis of complaint of one A.K. Bass, Inspector Investigation Officer of RC1/204-EOU- V, dated 29.09.2004, case was registered.
5. It is further submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI that Ld. Trial Court has passed the sentence as per law and keeping in Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 3 of 6 pages view the loss caused to the exchequer, fine imposed by Ld. Trial Court was proportionate and does not require any modification/reduction and therefore, appeal be dismissed.
6. A perusal of record reveals that the charge against the appellant and co-accused persons was framed by Ld. Trial Court for various offences. The appellant was charged for offences under sections 120-B IPC, 258 r/w 120-B IPC, 260 IPC r/w 120-B IPC, 419 IPC r/w 120-B IPC & 420 IPC r/w 120-B IPC. However, at that stage, appellant had not pleaded guilty before Ld. Trial Court and therefore, case was fixed for prosecution/CBI evidence. On 24.02.2009, PW-5 Raman Aggarwal was cross-examined on behalf of co-accused Anand G. Thorat when the appellant Abdul Karim Telgi moved an application u/s 241 Cr.PC alongwith Vakalatnama of counsel. On the plea of guilt by the accused (appellant herein), Ld. MM vide order dated 28.07.2010, after convicting the appellant in exercise of powers u/s 325 Cr.PC, sent the case to Ld. ACMM, North-East for appropriate orders.
Thereafter, vide order on sentence dated 03.08.2010, after hearing submissions from Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI and Ld. Counsel for the convict, Ld. ACMM sentenced the convict (appellant herein) to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years for each offence u/s 420/258/259/260 IPC as well as section 120-B IPC and was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5 lacs for each of the said offences, in default in payment of fine, convict (appellant herein) shall also have to further undergo SI for a period of one year for each offence respectively.
7. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that Ld. Trial Court has not considered the facts and circumstances, Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 4 of 6 pages particularly ill health of the appellant is contrary to the record because in the order on sentence itself it has been specifically mentioned that the convict (appellant herein) was not awarded rigorous imprisonment keeping in view his physical health condition. There is no gainsaying that in case of conviction in any criminal case, convict has to suffer punishment and in turn his family members also have to bear the consequences. The punishment for each of the offences under sections 420/258/259/260 IPC as well as section 120-B IPC as per law can extend to imprisonment upto 7 years has been passed by Ld. MM in the impugned order on sentence. The said offences are also punishable with fine besides substantive imprisonment. Ld. Trial Court has imposed only fine of Rs. 5 lacs for each of the offence and in default the convict has to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each offence. Ld. Trial Court has considered the facts and circumstances as it was a case of huge financial scam involving forged stamp papers causing loss to Indian economy and therefore, fine imposed by Ld. Trial Court can not be said to be excessive. The order for imprisonment in default of payment of fine also cannot be said to be dis- proportionate keeping in view the nature and gravity of offences for which the appellant was convicted. The authorities relied by Ld. Counsel for the appellant are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case as in the present appeal, loss has been caused to the State.
8. In view of the above discussion, in my considered view, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
9. A Copy of judgment in appeal be sent to Ld. Trial Court for Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 5 of 6 pages information. Trial Court Record be sent back. A copy of judgment in appeal be also sent to Ld. ACMM, North-East, KKD Courts, Delhi, for information. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (T.S. KASHYAP) today i.e on 10.10.2012 ASJ-04/NORTH-EAST/DELHI Cr. Appeal No. 21/2012, 6 of 6 pages