Delhi District Court
State vs Hans Raj on 21 July, 2007
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. : 79 of 2006 dated 02-1-2006
Date of Decision: 21st of July, 2007
STATE
Versus
1. Hans Raj
S/o Sh. Ganga Swaroop,
R/o H.NO. 186, Sector 21,
Pocket 11, Rohini,
Delhi.
2. Ashok Goel
S/o late Sh. Jagat Ram
R/o H.No. 2961/220,
Vishram Nagar,
Tri Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Ashok Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o House No. B-3,
Sawan Park,
Delhi.
4. Jagdish (since discharged vide order dt.15-4-06)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Village & Post Office Kathura,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
FIR No. 333/2004
PS Sultan Puri
U/s. 255,256,258, 259, 467,468 and 474 IPC
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
First the Facts In this case, accused persons, namely, Hans Raj and Ashok Aggarwal have been facing trial for offences U/s. 255, 256, 258, 259, 467, 468 and 474 IPC. Charge for an offence u/s 467, 468 and 474 IPC was framed against Ashok Goel accused. Separate charge for an offence u/s 259 IPC was also framed against Ashok Aggarwal accused in respect of possession of counterfeit stamp papers. Accusation levelled against accused Ashok Aggarwal is that on 30.03.2000, he kept in his possession four counterfeit stamp papers each worth Rs. 5000/-, when a raid was conducted at E-39, Sawan Park, Phase-III, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Ashok Goel accused is alleged to have forged five demand drafts and kept the same in his possession fraudulently and dishonestly so as to use the same as genuine. Hans Raj accused is alleged to have sold one fake stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- for Rs. 500/- to decoy customer, soon before raid was conducted at the office of Kuber Property situated in Rajni Colony, Begumpura, Delhi. He is also alleged to have been found in possession of two stencils of Central Sales Tax -:3:- Form, fake stamp papers, fake stamps and C & F Excise forms of different States.
On 29.03.2004 at about 11 a.m, Inspector Ram Chander, while posted as Inspector ( Operation Cell), North West District, sent Constable Satish vide DD No. 4, in the area of PS Sultanpuri, for collection of intelligence record/secret information etc. At about 5 p.m, Constable Satish in the company of a secret informer returned to Inspector Ram Chander. The secret information was passed on to the Inspector that owner of Kuber Property in Begumpura, Rajni Colony, situated on Barwala Road, was indulging in sale of fake stamp papers and that too at half rate. The Inspector apprised the ACP of this information. The ACP also satisfied himself about the information. At about 6.45 p.m, Inspector Ram Chander accompanied by SI Suraj Bhan, SI Kuldeep Singh, HC Satish Kumar, HC Randhir Singh, Constable Anil Kumar, Constable Satish, the secret informer and others reached near office of Kuber property at the aforesaid address in official vehicle No. DL-1LD-5106, in which they travelling. Sh. Ishwar Singh, ACP, also followed the team in his own vehicle.
HC Satish Kumar was made a decoy customer.
-:4:-Inspector Ram Chander conducted personal search of HC Satish Kumar which revealed that the HC was only having his identity card with him. It was allowed to remain with him. The Inspector then gave to HC Satish Kumar a five hundred rupees currency note, after signing it with date, and instructed the HC to go to the office of Kuber property and purchase one stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- on payment of Rs. 500/-. The Inspector also instructed SI Suraj Bhan to follow HC Satish Kumar a shadow witness, and that he should give signal on completion of transaction regarding purchase of stamp paper by HC Satish Kumar. Then SI Suraj Bhan accompanied by HC Satish Kumar and the secret informer left for the office of Kuber Property.
At about 8 p.m, SI Suraj Bhan gave signal whereupon the party, headed by Inspector Ram Chander, entered the office of Kuber property. Hans Raj accused was found present inside the office. He was found in possession of the 500 rupee currency note given to him by HC Satish Kumar. He was apprehended. The currency note was turned into a parcel, sealed and then taken into possession. HC Satish Kumar produced stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- stating that he had purchased it from Hans Raj accused. The -:5:- Inspector signed the stamp paper, turned it into a parcel, sealed the parcel and then seized it.
Case of prosecution is that on search of the premises of Kuber property, one boiler having wooden frame, was found lying in the office. It contained a polythene. On opening the polythene, 70 stamp papers, each worth Rs. 5000/-, 85 stamp papers, each worth Rs. 100/-, one stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- and one stamp paper worth Rs.500/-, were recovered. All these were allotted serial numbers, signed by the Inspector, turned into a parcel, sealed and then seized. Out of the aforesaid ploythene, 99 leaves of adhesive stamps were also recovered. Each leaf contained 50 stamps. Each stamp was worth Rs. 5/-. The Inspector signed all the leaves, allotted them serial numbers, turned the same into a parcel, then sealed the parcel and seized it.
60 C& F Excise forms of Delhi State; 50 C& F Excise forms of West Bengal State; 45 C& F Excise forms of Haryana State; 15 C& F Excise forms of Madhya Pradesh State; 15 C& F Excise forms of Punjab and 5 C& F Excise forms of Rajasthan State, were also recovered from the aforesaid polythene. These were also signed by the Inspector, given serial numbers, turned into a parcel, sealed -:6:- and then seized. The Inspector also seized two stencils, turned the same into a parcel, sealed and then seized. Thereafter, the Inspector prepared ruqqa, sent the same to police station through HC Satish Kumar whereupon FIR was recorded in this case. Inspector Ram Chander prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery.
Hans Raj accused is alleged to have made disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof led the party headed by the Inspector to his house situated in Sector-20, Rohini. There the police informed his wife about factum of his arrest and obtained her signatures. Then the police party accompanied by Hans Raj accused reached the house of Ashok Goel accused at B4/228A, Lawrence Road, Delhi.
Search of briefcase lying there led to 5 demand drafts having value of Rs. 10 Lac each. C& F Excise forms of Delhi State, West Begal, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan were also found lying in the briefcase. The Inspector signed the same, turned into separate parcels, sealed, and then seized the same.
It is also case of prosecution Ashok Goel accused made disclosure statement and led the police party headed by the Inspector to the house of his co-accused Ashok -:7:- Aggarwal. Search of that house led to recovery of four fake stamp papers worth RS. 5000/- each from a suitcase. The Inspector signed all these stamp papers, turned them into a parcel, sealed and seized it. Ashok Aggarwal was arrested.
Ashok Goel accused made disclosure statement. Hans Raj and Ashok Goel accused then led the party headed by the Inspector to H.No. 764, Lekhu Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi, as Hans Raj accused had disclosed to have installed a printing press there. In this respect, pointing out memos were prepared. Thereafter, Hans Raj and Ashok Goel accused led the party headed by the Inspector to Bankwali street, Peera Garhi, Delhi, but, even there, no printing press was found lying installed. Both the accused disclosed to the police that ultimately their co-accused Jagdish had taken away the printing press from Bankwali Gali to some unknown place.
On return to police station, the Inspector deposited the entire case property with the MHC(M) and from there reached his office situated at Deepali Crossing. Then, accused persons were got medically examined.
In case FIR No. 198/04 registered at Police Station- Paschim Vihar, on 31.03.2004 at 7 p.m., on the basis -:8:- of ruqqa sent by Inspector Nafe Singh. Inspector Ram Chander learnt about registration of the case and thereupon formally arrested Jagdish accused (since P.O.) in present case.
On 15.04.2004, Sh. M.K. Aggrwal, Senior Branch Manager of New Delhi Draft Paying Services Branch, received one sealed envelope from Operation Cell, North West District, Delhi Police, containing five draft forms and on analysis with the help of mechanical device, observed that these were fake and only colour photocopy of demand draft of their bank. In this respect, he prepared report. The exhibits were then returned by the witness to the Operation Cell.
On 22.04.2004, Sh. H.P. Sharma, Treasuary Officer, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, received letter from In- charge, Operation Cell ( North West District), Delhi Police, and submitted parawise reply thereto.
On 28.04.2004, Constable Rakesh Kumar collected two sealed parcels from MHC(M), Sultanpuri, vide RC No. 54/21 and deposited them at Bikrikar Bhawan, ITO, Delhi. Sh. V.K. Awasthi of that office got the record checked and submitted reports that the C& F Excise Forms, contained -:9:- in two sealed parcels, did not belong to his department. He also opined that forms F contained in the parcels were not genuine.
On 24.04.2004, Constable Bhagwatendra Singh collected four sealed parcels from PS Sultanpuri and reached India Security Press, Nasik Road, City Nasik, and on 27.04.2004, handed over the same to the official of the Security Press. These bags were opened by expert in presence of Constable Bhagwatendra. The contents of the parcels find mentioned in letter dated 27.04.2004.
Sh. Shashi Kant Barde, Expert in detection of counter fake security, examined some of the documents and submitted report.
On completion of investigation, challan was put in court.
From the material placed on record by the prosecution, charge was framed against all the three accused persons on 27.04.2006. Since they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 22 witnesses:
PW1 HC Kali Charan has deposed about -:10:- recording of FIR Ex. PW1/A on the basis of ruqqa Ex. PW1/B received by him on 30.03.2004 at about 12.15 a.m. PW5 HC Rajinder Prasad has deposed about recording of FIR bearing No. 198/04 ( Ex. PW5/A) PS Paschim Vihar on the basis of ruqqa brought by HC Ramesh to PS Paschim Vihar on 31.03.2004 at about 7 p.m. PW2 Hemant Tomar is landlord of H.No. 764/46, Block A, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi. He deposed about letting out of the premises to Ashok Goel accused on 21.10.2001 at the monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. He also deposed to have produced before the police copy of rent agreement Ex. PW2/B and about its seizure vide memo Ex.
PW2/A. He further deposed that he visited the tenanted premises only twice, during 11 months tenure but found the premises lying locked. It is in his statement that the premises was let out for residential purposes.
PW3 Hari Kishan has deposed about letting out of the portion of H.No. B-39, Sawan Park, by his brother Suresh to Ashok Aggarwal accused.
PW4 Ranbir Singh deposed that in March, 2003, he let out his plot No. 487/10, Bankwali street, Peera Garhi, to one Jagdish kumar through Pandit Jagdish Kumar, a -:11:- property dealer. He further deposed that Jagdish Kumar, the tenant, installed a printing press for a period of 7/8 months and thereafter he vacated the plot.
PW7 Vivek @ Pappu has been examined to prove that Hans Raj and Ashok Goel contacted him in November, 2003, while he was a Contractor of NDPL, an electricity supply company. According to him, Hans Raj and Ashok Goel expressed him their desire for electric connection in a temple. He further deposed that they did not bring any document for installation of electric connection and pleaded that there was no such document in respect of the temple. He further deposed about installation of electric connection No. 393 in the name of H.R. Vats. In this respect, the witness further stated that receipt No. 393 dated 10.11.2003 was issued by him in the name of H.R. Vats having address of plot No. 55, Naveen Vihar, Begumpura Extension, and received Rs. 2000/-. Photocopy of receipt is Ex. PW7/A. PW9 HC Ranbir Singh, PW12 Constable Satish, PW20 SI Suraj Bhan, the shadow witness, PW21 Inspector Ram Chander, investigating officer, and PW22 HC Satish Kumar, the decoy witness have been examined to prove factum of raid and recoveries from the Office of Kubery -:12:- Property, Rajni Colony, Begampura, on Barwala Road, and also from the respective house of Ashok Goel and Ashok Aggarwal accused.
PW6 Sh. V.K. Avasthi, Sales Tax Officer, has been examined to prove his report Ex. PW16/A submitted after analysis of the contents of two sealed parcels i.e. C& F Forms collectively exhibited as Ex P1. The witness also proved report Ex. PW6/B to the effect that forms did not belong to their department and that their department did not print forms of other States like M.P., West Bengal, Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan.
PW10 Sh. M.K. Aggarwal, then serving as Senior Branch Manager, Draft Paying Services Branch, New Delhi, has been examined to prove his report Ex. PW10/A submitted after analysis of five demand drafts Ex. PW10/1 to 5 sent for examination, to the effect that these demand drafts were fake and only colour photocopy of demand drafts of their bank.
PW11 Sh. H.P. Sharma, the then Treasuary Officer, Tis Hazari Courts, has been examined to prove his reply Ex. PW11/B to the letter Ex. PW11/A received from Operation Cell, North West District, Delhi Police. -:13:-
PW13 Sh. Gurmeet Singh, the then Manager (Operations), IDBI Bank, Pitam Pura, Delhi, has proved his report Ex. PW13/B in reply to letter Ex. PW13/A received from Inspector (Operations Cell), North West District, Delhi Police. He further deposed that as per record of the bank, Ashok Kumar Goel acted as introducer for opening of account by Jagdish Chander and that the account was opened by Jagdish Chander on 18.09.2002.
PW14 Sh. C.B. Burkal, Administrative officer, India Security Press, Nasik, has been examined to prove his letters Ex. PW14/A, Ex. PW14/B and in respect of the contents of the four sealed parcels received from ACP (Operations) North West District, Delhi Police, for analysis.
PW15 Sh. Shashi Kant Barde, then serving as an Expert in detection of counterfeit security at India Security Press, Nasik Road, has been examined to prove his report Ex. PW15/A regarding analysis of non-judicial stamp papers and notarial stamps.
PW8 Rakesh Kumar, PW16 Constable Bhagwatendera Singh, PW17 Constable Rakam Singh, PW18 HC Yashbir Singh and PW19 Constable Satish have been examined to prove investigation part of the prosecution -:14:- story.
When examined U/s. 313 CrPC, accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication. However, they opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that from the statements of PW9 HC Randhir Singh, PW12 Constable Satish, PW20 SI Suraj Bhan, PW21 Inspector Ram Chander and PW22 HC Satish Kumar, the prosecution case about conducting of raid at the Office of Kuber Property, recoveries of fake documents from there, about sale of fake stamp paper by Hans Raj accused to the decoy witness, about raid at the house of Ashok Goel and also at the house of Ashok Aggarwal and the recoveries from their possession, stands fully established. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also referred to reports of the Expert witness and contended that when it stands established that the documents found in possession of the accused persons were fake documents, prosecution case against all the accused persons stands fully established.
On the other hand, learned counsel for all the -:15:- three accused persons have contended that prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that any raid was conducted at the office of Kuber Property or at the house of Ashok Goel or Ashok Aggarwal accused leading to recovery of any fake document like stamp papers, notarial stamps or demand drafts or stencils or boiler. It has also been contended by learned defence counsel that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are in contradiction with each other on material aspects of the case. In this respect, reference has been made by learned defence counsel to the statements of the witnesses. It has also been contended that when no witness from the public was associated before or at the time of alleged raid and recovery, despite ample opportunities, no reliance should be placed on the statements of the police officials who are highly interested in success of their case, particularly when the witnesses have made material improvements in their version, while making statements in court.
Receipt of Secret Information Case of prosecution is that raid was conducted at the office of Kuber Property situated in Rajni Colony, Begumpur, Delhi, on the basis of secret information. As -:16:- regards secret information, prosecution has examined PW-12 Constable Satish, No. 1033 North West. According to him on 29-03-2004 at 11 a.m. he had gone to Police Division Sultanpuri, in connection with some information. When he was present at Budh Vihar, he received secret information that a person by the name of Hans Raj was selling fake stamp papers at half rate and that said Hans Raj was having an office under the name and style of Kubery Property in Rajni colony, Begum Pur, Delhi. He further stated to have accompanied the informer to the office of Operation Cell at Deepali Chowk and there produced him before Inspector Ram Chander who in turn talked to ACP Sh. Ishwar Singh.
Learned defence counsel referred to cross examination of PW-12 wherein he deposed to have stated before I.O. that the secret information was regarding sale of fake stamp papers by Hans Raj, but in Ex.PW-12/DA i.e. statement made by him before Investigating Officer, name of Hans Raj does not stand recorded. A perusal of PW-12/DA would reveal that therein PW-12 stated that secret information was to the effect that owner of Kuber Property used to sell fake stamp papers. In his cross examination, PW-12 admitted that at the time he received secret -:17:- information, he did not know that Hans Raj was the owner of Kuber Property. From this admission by PW-12 that he did not know that Hans Raj was the owner of the Kuber Property, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution version regarding the receipt of the secret information which was regarding sale of fake stamp papers, particularly when there is no discrepancy in the statement of PW-12 regarding the place where fake stamp papers used to be sold.
Statement of PW-12 finds corroboration from the statement of PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander, when he stated that on 29-03-2004 at about 11 a.m., vide DD no. 4, Constable Satish was sent to the area of PS Sultan Puri for collection of criminal intelligence record/secret information. PW-21 further deposed that at about 5 p.m. Ct. Satish returned and at that time he was accompanied by a secret informer. He further deposed that the secret information was to the effect that person - owner of Kuber Property in Begum Pur, Rajni Colony, situated at Barwala Road was indulging in sale of fake stamp papers at half rate. PW-21 further stated to have apprised the ACP of the secret information. As per this evidence available on record, it stands established that police received secret information about sale of fake stamp -:18:- papers at the office of Kubery Property, situated in Rajni Colony, Begum Pur, Barwala Road, Delhi.
Conducting of Raid, Sale of Stamp Papers by Hans Raj accused to the Decoy Witness PW22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar Case of prosecution is that after receipt of secret information a party was constituted and PW22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar was directed to act as a decoy witness and PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan was directed to act as a shadow witness, on reaching near the office of Kuber Property, in Rajni Colony. In this respect, there are statements of PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander, PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan, PW-22 Head Ct. Satish, PW-12 Ct. Satish and PW-9 Head Ct. Randhir Singh.
PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander deposed that at about 06:45 p.m., he accompanied by SI Suraj Bhan, Head Ct. Satish, SI Kuldeep Singh, Head Ct. Randhir Singh, Ct. Anil Kumar, Ct. Satish and secret informer reached Rajni Colony and parked their Tata vehicle at a distance of 200 yards short of the office of Kuber Property, whereas ACP Ishwar Singh followed them in his own vehicle. He further deposed that he conducted personal search of Head Ct. -:19:- Satish which revealed that he was carrying only one I-Card. The Head Constable was allowed to retain the I-Card with him. In this respect memo Ex.PW-20/A was prepared. Thereafter, he handed over a 500 rupees currency note to Head constable Satish Kumar, after having signed it, vide memo Ex.PW20/B. Witness further deposed that he instructed Head Ct. Satish Kumar to go to the person available at the office of Kubery Property and purchase one stamp paper of Rs.1000/- against payment of the 500 rupees currency note given to him. The witness further deposed to have instructed SI Suraj Bhan to follow Head Ct. Satish Kumar as he was to act as a shadow witness. He further deposed to have instructed the Sub Inspector to give a signal on completion of transaction regarding purchase of stamp paper of Rs.1000/- by Head Ct. Satish Kumar. It is also in his statement that SI Suraj Bhan and Head Ct. Satish then left in the company of secret informer.
On the aforesaid aspect, PW-9 Head Ct. Randhir Singh deposed that on reaching near the office of Kuber Property, at about 07:30 p.m, Inspector Ram Chander handed over a 500/- rupee currency note to Head Ct. Satish Kumar telling him that he was to buy a stamp paper after -:20:- visiting the office of Kubery Property. PW-9 further deposed that the Inspector directed SI Suraj Bhan to accompany Head Ct. Satish Kumar and give a signal to the raiding party after purchase of stamp paper by Head Ct. Satish Kumar. It is also in his statement that Inspector conducted search of person of Head Constable Satish Kumar before handing over to him the 500/- rupee currency note and that in this respect memo was prepared. He further stated that Inspector put his signatures on the 500 rupee currency note given to Head Ct. Satish Kumar and that memo was prepared in respect of said currency note by the Inspector. So, on all these aspects, PW- 9 Head Ct. Randhir, has lent corroboration to the statement of PW-21, and also by further stating that accordingly Head Constable Satish Kumar and SI Suraj Bhan left for the office of Kubery Property.
Then there is statement of PW-22 Head Constable Satish Kumar. According to PW-22 on 29-03-
2004 at about 06:45 p.m., raiding party started from the office of Operation Cell in Tata 407 Vehicle bearing No. DL-1LB- 5106 being driven by constable Naresh and that all of them reached Begumpur. The vehicle was parked 50 yards of short of the office of Kuber Property. It is also in his chief -:21:- examination that on that date, Inspector Ram Chand called him and other staff and briefed them about secret information which he had received, and it was then that the raiding party was constituted.
PW-22 further deposed that Inspector Ram Chander, on reaching near the office of Kuber Property conducted his search, handed over to him a 500 rupee currency note, after signing the same; that the Inspector directed him to purchase a stamp paper worth Rs.1000/-, on payment of Rs.500/-, from Hans Raj accused, after visiting the office of Kubery Property. According to PW-22, SI Suraj Bhan was to give a signal and that the SI also accompanied him. PW-22 then entered the office of Kuber Property where Hans Raj accused was present, and paid him 500 rupee currency note and as such purchased from him stamp paper worth Rs.1000/-. The witness further deposed that it was thereafter that SI Suraj Bhan gave a signal.
PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan also deposed in line with the statements of other witnesses named above. According to him, on 29-03-2004, he joined raiding party headed by Inspector Ram Chander, on the basis of information given by constable Satish with regard to forged stamp papers. At -:22:- about 06:45 p.m., vide DD no. 9, they left for the disclosed place i.e. Rajni Colony, Begum Pur at Barwala Road. The witness then named the members of the raiding party and further stated that the entire party was under supervision of ACP. According to the witness, the raiding party was in official vehicle Tata 407. He further deposed that at about 07:30 p.m, they parked their vehicle at a distance of 200 metres from the office of Kuber Property. As regard instructions given to him and Head Ct. Satish Kumar, PW-20 deposed that Inspector Ram Chander directed Head Ct. Satish Kumar to go to the office of Kuber Property and purchase a stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- after paying Rs.500/-. As regards his own role, PW-20 deposed that he was directed to act as a shadow witness and as per directions he was to overhear the conversation between Head Ct. Satish Kumar and the person present at the office of Kuber Property, and then to give a signal to the raiding party by placing his hand over his head after the transaction was stuck.
It is also in the statement of PW-20 that Inspector Ram Chander conducted personal search of Head Ct. Satish Kumar and found that he was carrying only his I-Card. -:23:- Inspector Ram Chander then put signatures on 500 rupee currency note and handed over the same to Head Ct. Satish Kumar. In this respect, PW-20 has proved personal search memos Ex.PW-20/A and PW-20/B. According to PW-20, thereafter he and Head Ct. Satish Kumar left for the office of Kuber Property where Hans Raj accused met them. Head Ct. Satish Kumar talked to Hans Raj for purchase of a stamp paper and Hans Raj agreed to sell stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- for Rs.500/- only. He further deposed that Head Ct. Satish Kumar paid Rs.500/- to Hans Raj accused and the accused gave to the Head Ct. Satish Kumar a stamp paper worth Rs.1000/-. In this manner, the transaction was completed, as further stated by the witness. The witness then deposed to have given stipulated signal to the other members of the party.
At this stage, a perusal of memo Ex.PW-20/A would reveal that contents thereof lend corroboration to the statements of prosecution witnesses in respect of conducting of search of the person of Head Ct. Satish Kumar by Inspector Ram Chander, availability of only I-Card with Head Ct. Satish Kumar and that Head Ct. Satish Kumar was to act as a decoy customer. This memo bears attestation of SI -:24:- Suraj Bhan, Ct. Satish and Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Then there is another memo Ex.PW-20/B. Contents of this memo would reveal that after search of the person of Head Ct. Satish, he was given 500 rupee currency note bearing no.7AC281245 for purchase of fake stamp paper, while acting as a decoy customer. Contents of this memo further reveals that the Inspector put his signatures on the currency note with date 29-03-2004. This memo bears attestation of SI Suraj Bhan, Ct. Satish and also bears signatures of Head Ct. Satish Kumar.
It is true that PW 12 Ct. Satish stated that no memo was prepared at the time of handing over of currency note to Head Ct. Satish Kumar but this fact does not make his presence as member of raiding party doubtful when memo Ex.PW-20/B bears his attestation and he categorically stated about handing over of currency note. It appears that memory did not help PW-12 in recollecting this fact.
Statements of PW-9, PW-12, PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 regarding search of the person of Head Ct. Satish, handing over of 500 rupee currency note by Inspector Ram Chander to Head Ct. Satish Kumar, on reaching Rajni Colony, Begum Pur, Delhi, issuance of directions to Head Ct. -:25:- Satish Kumar to act as a decoy customer so as to purchase fake stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- from the person available at the office of Kuber Property, in Rajni Colony, and the directions to SI Suraj Bhan to act as a shadow witness and give signal to the other members of the raiding party after the dealing was complete, find corroboration from memo Ex.PW20/A and PW-20/B. Currency note handed over by Inspector Ram Chander to Head Ct. Satish Kumar, when produced in court was exhibited as Ex.P2. It is true that in his cross examination PW-22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar stated that Inspector Ram Chander told him in the office itself i.e. the office of Operation Cell that he was to act as a decoy customer, whereas the version of the prosecution is that directions in this respect were issued by the Inspector on reaching Rajni Colony. But this is not a ground to disbelieve the version narrated by Head Ct. Satish Kumar particularly when he started his chief examination by specifically stating that Inspector Ram Chander called him and other staff to the office of Operation Cell and briefed them about the secret information and then he constituted a raiding party. The fact remains that it was only Head Ct. Satish Kumar who was to act a decoy customer. There is no contradiction in the -:26:- statements of prosecution witnesses on this point as none of them deposed that anyone else was to act as a decoy customer. There is also no contradiction in the statements of the witnesses on the role attributed to the SI Suraj Bhan, who was to act as a shadow witness. SI Suraj Bhan, while appearing as PW-20 narrated that he gave the stipulated signal to the other members of the party after Hans Raj accused sold stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- to Head Ct. Satish Kumar on payment of 500 rupee currency note by Head Constable Satish Kumar to Hans Raj accused. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that anyone other than SI Suraj Bhan gave a signal or that anyone else was directed to act as a shadow witness.
PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan deposed that on giving of the stipulated signal SI Ram Chander and other members of the raiding party reached at Kuber Property and at that time he and Head Ct. Satish Kumar narrated the manner in which the transaction was completed. He further deposed about recovery of currency note Ex.P2 from Hans Raj accused by Inspector Ram Chander and its seizure Ex.PW-12/A. Then he deposed about production of stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- and its seizure by the Inspector vide memo Ex.PW-8/A. He -:27:- specified that the stamp paper was turned into a parcel, the parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB'. According to him the currency note recovered from Hans Raj accused was also similarly sealed.
It is true that PW-20 Inspector Ram Chander deposed that the currency note given by him to Head Constable Satish Kumar, was signed only by him (Inspector Ram Chander) whereas PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan deposed that the currency note given to Head Ct. Satish Kumar was signed not only by Inspector Ram Chander but also by Head Ct. Satish Kumar. This is in contradiction with the version of the prosecution as available from the contents of the memo Ex.PW-20/B and as narrated by PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan. But this contradiction is not of much significance particularly when PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander categorically stated that the currency note given to Head Ct. Satish Kumar by him was signed by him with date and not by PW Head Ct. Satish Kumar, and even contents of Ex.PW-20/B depict that the currency note was signed only by Inspector Ram Chander. Furthermore, currency note Ex.P2 proved to have been given by Inspector Ram Chander to Head Ct. Satish Kumar for being given to the Hans Raj accused for purchase of stamp -:28:- paper, and got exhibited in court, bears signatures only of Inspector Ram Chander.
In his cross examination PW-20 stated to have told the investigating officer about preparation of memo regarding handing over of currency note to Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Attention of witness was drawn to his statement Ex.PW20/DA where this fact does not stand recorded. PW20 tried to explain by pleading ignorance if the Investigating Officer had recorded this fact in his statement or not. It is true that in his statement Ex.PW20/DA it also does not stand recorded that such and such conversation took place between Head Ct. Satish Kumar and Hans Raj accused in respect of deal; that Hans Raj accused agreed to sell stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- for Rs.500/- only; that Head constable Satish Kumar paid 500 rupee currency note given to him by Inspector and that Hans Raj accused gave to the head constable stamp paper worth Rs.1000/-.
PW-20 candidly admitted to have not stated before the investigating officer that 500 rupee currency note recovered from Hans Raj accused was a fake currency note. But it somehow stands so recorded in his statement Ex.PW20/DA. From the very beginning it is not case of the -:29:- prosecution that 500 rupee currency note handed over to head constable Satish Kumar was a fake currency note. So, in this respect, clerical mistake appears to have crept in the statement Ex.PW-20/DA recorded by Investigating Officer.
Learned defence counsel has drawn attention to the cross examination of PW-12 Ct. Satish wherein he admitted to have not stated before the investigating officer that Hans Raj accused was holding currency note of Rs.5/- at the time he was apprehended, but actually it stands so recorded in his statement Ex.PW12/A. In this respect, it may be mentioned it is not case of prosecution that five rupee currency note was given by Head Ct. Satish Kumar to Hans Raj accused. From the very beginning case of prosecution is that 500 rupee currency note was given to Head Ct. Satish Kumar for purchase of fakes stamp paper from Hans Raj. PW-12 volunteered that it might have been so mentioned because of clerical mistake in the statement recorded by investigating officer. This explanation of PW-12 is believable and is accepted.
It also appears that the investigating officer somehow could not record the above mentioned facts while noting down the statement Ex.PW-20/DA and as such no -:30:- adverse inference can be drawn against PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan on account of omission of the above mentioned facts from his statement Ex.PW20/DA, particularly when the documents prepared at the spot bear his attestation and entire evidence establishes his presence at the spot.
PW21 Inspector Ram Chander deposed in line with the PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan by stating that at about 8 p.m. SI Suraj Bhan gave a signal whereupon he accompanied by Head Ct. Randhir Singh, Ct. Anil and SI Kuldeep entered the office of Kuber Property; Hans Raj accused was found in possession of 500 rupee currency note Ex.P2; that the currency note was seized, turned into a parcel, sealed with seal bearing impression SB and then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-12/A. Further according to PW-21 Head Ct. Satish Kumar produced before him stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- stating that he had purchased it from Hans Raj accused. The witness further deposed that he signed the stamp paper; turned the same into parcel, and sealed it with the aforesaid seal. In this respect, recovery memo Ex.PW- 9/A was prepared.
It may be mentioned here that PW-9 Head Ct.
Randhir Singh (initially inadvertently typed as PW-8) also -:31:- deposed about entry in the office of Kuber Property at about 8 p.m. on a signal having been given by SI Suraj Bhan to the other members of the raiding party, presence of Hans Raj accused in the office with currency note of Rs.500/- in his hand, recovery of currency note by Inspector Ram Chander; production of stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- by Head Ct. Satish Kumar before the Inspector while stating that he had bought it from Hans Raj accused on payment of the aforesaid currency note of Rs.500/-, about seizure of stamp paper vide a recovery memo Ex.PW-8/A (actually PW-9/A but inadvertently typed as PW-8/A), after the same was turned into a parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB'.
PW-22 Head Ct. Satish also deposed about a signal given by SI Suraj Bhan about entry of Inspector Ram Chander and other members of the raiding party in the office of Kuber Property, recovery of 500 rupee currency note from the hand of Hans Raj accused, seizure of currency note vide a recovery memo. He also deposed to have produced stamp paper worth Rs.1000/- before the Inspector, about its seizure after it was turned into parcel and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB'. A perusal of recovery memo -:32:- Ex.PW-9/A (inadvertently typed as PW-8/A) would reveal that it bears attestation of Head Ct. Randhir Singh. It stands recorded in this recovery memo that the currency note and stamp paper were produced before the Inspector; that the Inspector and the attesting witness Head Ct. Randhir singh put their initials and it was thereafter that these were turned into parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB' and seized vide this memo. Thus, the contents of this recovery memo lend corroboration to the version narrated by prosecution witnesses regarding seizure of the currency note from Hans Raj accused and production of the stamp paper by Head Ct. Satish Kumar after its purchase from Hans Raj accused on 29-03-2004.
Preparation of rough site plan of the place where transaction about sale of stamp paper took place:
Case of prosecution is that during investigation at the Office of Kuber Property, in Rajni Colony, the investigating officer, prepared rough site plan depicting the place where office of Kuber Property was situated, where HC Satish Kumar went, struck a deal with Hans Raj accused and purchased a stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- from Hans Raj accused on payment of Rs. 500/-.-:33:-
PW21 Inspector Ram Chander deposed in court that he prepared rough site plan Ex. PW21/B depicting the place of occurrence. Rough site plan Ex. PW21/B depicts marginal note "A" as the point where Hans Raj accused handed over counterfeit stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- to the decoy customer after the deal was struck. Had no such deal taken place at the Office of Kuber Property, Inspector Ram Chander could not prepared site plan Ex. PW21/B giving description of the Office of Kuber Property and the surrounding area. In that situation, even the marginal note "A" could not be depicted by the Inspector.
It has been argued by learned defence counsel that despite opportunity, the investigating officer did not associate/join anyone from the public, and as such, no reliance should be placed on the statements of the witnesses who are police officials, regarding the deal and sale/purchase of stamp paper.
PW21 Inspector Ram Chander deposed that prior to conducting raid at the Office of Kuber Property and also during the proceedings conducted in that office, he requested 5/6 passersby to join the party, but none came forward. HC Satish Kumar and SI Suraj Bhan entered Office of Kuber -:34:- Property after 7.30 p.m. From the location of the Office of Kuber Property, there is no doubt that persons from the public could be associated prior to conducting raid. It is well settled that statements of official witnesses cannot be thrown away in entirety merely because of non-joining of witness from the public. Statements of official witnesses are as relevant and admissible as statements of other witnesses. Their testimony cannot be rejected outrightly merely because of their official status. However, absence of corroboration from independent source certainly puts the Court on guard to scrutinize statements of official witnesses with more care and caution so as to rule out possibility of concoction of facts or false implication of accused persons.
In this case, from the oral and documentary evidence discussed above, it stands proved from the statements of the police officials that on the basis of secret information the raiding party reached Rajni Colony and then HC Satish Kumar was sent to the Office of Kuber Property in the capacity of a decoy customer whereas SI Suraj Bhan was to act as a shadow witness. It stands established that HC Satish Kumar acted as decoy customer and purchased stamp paper Ex. P3 on payment of Rs. 500/- by giving him -:35:- currency note Ex. P2, and it was thereafter that SI Suraj Bhan gave signal to the other members of the raiding party. It also stands established that Hans Raj accused was found in possession of currency note Ex. P2 whereas HC Satish Kumar produced stamp paper Ex. P3.
No delay in recording of FIR is another fact which lends corroboration to the prosecution version ruling out possibility of introduction of false or concocted facts or substitution of accused/culprit. In this case, according to PW21 Inspector Ram Chander, he sent ruqqa Ex. PW21/A from the Office of Kuber Property, Rajni Colony, Begumpur, Delhi to the police station through HC Satish Kumar which led to registration of this case. A perusal of ruqqa Ex. PW21/A would reveal that it was dispatched from the spot at 11.45 p.m. through HC Satish Kumar. FIR Ex. PW1/A came to be recorded at police station at 12.15 a.m. on the night intervening 29/30.03.2004. All the details, mentioned above regarding receipt of secret information, constitution of the raiding party, arrival of the raiding party in Rajni Colony, conducting of personal search of HC Satish Kumar, departure of HC Satish Kumar to the Office of Kuber Property as decoy customer and SI Suraj Bhan as shadow witness, -:36:- stand duly recorded in the ruqqa Ex. PW21/A. It also stands recorded in the ruqqa that it was on the basis of signal given by SI Suraj Bhan that the other members of the raiding party entered at the Office of Kuber Property and it was at that time that Hans Raj accused was found in possession of 500/-
rupee currency note whereas HC Satish Kumar produced stamp paper of the value of Rs. 1000/- before Inspector Ram Chander, who in turn seized the same after turning them into parcels, sealed with the seal bearing impression "SB". Had it not so happened, all these minute details would not have found place in ruqqa Ex. PW21/A, dispatched from the spot at 11.45 p.m. In view of all this, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that no reliance should be placed on the statements of the official witnesses examined in this case, because of non-joining of any person from the public, in the raiding party.
Recovery of other stamp papers, adhesive stamps, stencils and C&F Excise Forms from the Office of Kuber Property:
Case of prosecution is that after the recovery of the currency note Ex. P2 and stamp paper Ex P3, as noticed above, search of the Office of Kuber Property led to recovery -:37:- of a boiler having wooden frame and from it a polythene containing stamp papers, adhesive stamps, stencils and C&F excise forms was recovered.
According to PW21 Inspector Ram Chander, there were 70 stamp papers, each worth Rs. 5000/-; 80 stamp papers, each worth Rs. 100/-; one stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/- and another stamp paper worth Rs. 500/-.
Further, according to him, 99 leaves of adhesive stamps were also recovered from the polythene, each leaf contained 50 stamps and each stamp was worth Rs. 5/-. PW21 further deposed that 60 C&F Excise forms of Delhi State, 50 C&F Excise forms of West Bengal State, 45 C&F Excise forms of Haryana State, 15 C&F Excise forms of Madhya Pradesh State, 15 C&F Excise forms of Punjab State and 5 C&F Excise forms of Rajasthan State were recovered from the polythene. PW21 further deposed about recovery of two stencils of Excise forms.
It is in the statement of PW21 that he signed all the stamp papers, adhesive stamps and C&F Excise forms, allotted them serial numbers, turned them into sealed parcels by sealing the same with the seal bearing impression "SB". In this respect, PW21 also proved recovery memo Ex. -:38:- PW20/C. PW9 HC Randhir Singh also deposed that a wooden box was found lying in the Office of Kuber Property and out of it a number of excise forms, stamp papers and stencils were recovered and seized after the same were counted, turned into parcels and sealed with the seal bearing impression "SB". It is also in his statement that three sheets Ex. P4 to Ex P6 ( of two stencils) were also recovered from there. PW20 SI Suraj Bhan too deposed that search of the Office of Kuber Property led the recovery of 70 Indian non- judicial stamp papers, each worth Rs. 5000/-, from a polythene, lying in a plank boiler. According to PW20, from the same polythene, one Indian non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 1000/-; another Indian non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 500/- and 85 Indian non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 100/- each, were also recovered. PW20 supported the statement of PW21-investigating officer by stating that the Inspector provided serial number to each stamp paper, signed them himself and also got the same signed from HC Satish Kumar; that the stamp papers were then turned into a parcel, sealed with the aforesaid seal and then seized vide a recovery memo. PW20 further lent corroboration to the -:39:- statement of PW21 by deposing about recovery of 99 sheets of notarial stamps from the plate boiler. According to him, each leaf was of 50 stamps and each stamp was of Rs. 5/-. These were also turned into a parcel, sealed with the aforesaid seal and then taken into possession vide recovery memo.
It is also in the statement of PW20 that two stencils, 60 C&F Excise forms meant for Delhi; 50 C&F Excise forms meant for West Bengal; 15 C&F Excise forms each meant for Punjab and M.P.; 5 C&F Excise forms meant for Rajasthan and some C&F Excise forms meant for Haryana, were also recovered from the same plate boiler having wooden covering. PW20 then proved his attestation at point "A" on Ex. PW20/C. Learned defence counsel, while referring to the statement of PW9 HC Randhir Singh, submitted that according to him recovery of stamp papers, notarial stamps, stencils and excise forms, was effected from a wooden box whereas other witnesses have deposed that the recovery was made from the wooden plate boiler, and as such, no reliance should be placed on the contradictory statements of the witnesses who are highly interested in success of this -:40:- case.
It is true that PW9 HC Randhir Singh deposed about recovery of a number of Excise forms, stamp papers, stencils and notarial stamps from the wooden box and not from the plate boiler, but statements of PW21 Inspector Ram Chander, PW20 SI Suraj Bhan and PW22 HC Satish Kumar are in consonance with each other regarding recovery of these items from a boiler having wooden frame. It appears that PW9 HC Randhir Singh named the container as the wooden box although it was a wooden plate boiler. But this contradiction, is not of much significance, particularly when PW9 specifically deposed that the container was made of wood. It is true that the wooden boiler was not seized b y the investigating officer. Learned defence counsel argued that non-seizure of the boiler makes the case of prosecution doubtful, But I do not find any merit in this contention. The wooden boiler was merely a container having a polythene from which the stamp papers, notarial stamps, stencils and C&F excise forms were recovered. In the given circumstances, only the stamp papers, forms, stencils and notarial stamps, were the incriminating objects. The wooden boiler was not the incriminating material. Therefore, when the -:41:- investigating officer did not deem it appropriate to seize the boiler, no adverse inference can be drawn against the entire prosecution version.
Rough site plan Ex. PW21/B depicts marginal note "B" as the place from where the plate boiler having polythene containing fake stamp papers, stamps, C&F Excise forms and stencils, was found lying. Had these items not been recovered from the polythene, kept in a boiler, this fact could not find mention in the site plan Ex. PW21/B. Similarly, this fact could not be mentioned by the IO in the ruqqa Ex. PW21/A sent from the spot at 11.45 p.m. leading to prompt registration of this case. All minute details of the items recovered from the boiler, kept in a polythene, find mentioned in ruqqa Ex. PW21/A. Furthermore, recovery memo Ex. PW20/C proved to have been prepared at the spot soon after the recoveries of stamp papers, notarial stamps, C&F Excise forms and stencils lends corroboration to the statements of PW9, PW20, PW21 and PW22. This memo bearing attestation of SI Suraj Bhan and HC Satish Kumar proves their presence on the given date, time and place of recoveries.
Learned defence counsel has referred to the -:42:- cross examination of PW22 HC Satish Kumar and argued that the statements Ex. PW22/DA and Ex. PW22/DB stated to have been made by him before the investigating officer are not in consonance with the prosecution version which make his presence on the given date, time and place of recoveries i.e Office of Kuber property highly doubtful.
In his cross examination, PW22 admitted that his statement Ex. PW22/DA was recorded after the custody of the accused persons was obtained by way of police remand. He further stated that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer prior thereto only once. Ex. PW22/DB is first statement made by HC Satish Kumar. Ex. PW22/DA was made thereafter. A perusal of Ex. PW22/DA i.e. the first statement would reveal that it pertains to the proceedings conducted by the investigating officer till the time ruqqa was sent through him (PW22 HC Satish Kumar) to the police station. Ex. PW22/DA is the second statement recorded on the same day i.e. on 30.03.2004. It begins with the sentence that the witness first of all approved of his previous statement Ex. PW22/DB. Then he started narrating therein as to what happened on his return to the spot after getting the case registered. In this subsequent statement, HC Satish Kumar -:43:- stated about personal search of Hans Raj accused, making of his disclosure statement, leading to the house of Ashok Goel accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement, about recovery of five demand drafts and some excise forms from Ashok Goel, arrest of Ashok Goel, Ashok Goel accused having led to the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused, recovery of stamp papers from Ashok Aggarwal accused and also about production of the accused persons before the court.
PW21 Inspector Ram Chander also stated in his cross examination in line with the version narrated by HC Satish Kumar. According to PW21, the recoveries from the polythene found lying in the boiler were made in presence of HC Satish Kumar; that after use of the seal in sealing the parcels containing incriminating material, was handed over to HC Satish Kumar. He also deposed to have prepared ruqqa Ex. PW21/A and sent the same to the Office of Kuber Property with copy of FIR and original ruqqa. During his cross examination, the investigating officer was not put any question by learned defence counsel regarding the time of recording of two statements of HC Satish Kumar. In absence thereof, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned -:44:- defence counsel that adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution version regarding presence of HC Satish Kumar at the time of recoveries from the polythene recovered from the boiler. Had these recoveries not been effected in presence of HC Satish Kumar from Office of Kuber Property, neither the recovery memo Ex. PW20/C could be attested by him nor the seal could be delivered to him by the investigating officer, after turning the incriminating objects into parcels and sealing the same.
A perusal of column no. 8 of arrest memo Ex.PW20/D of Hans Raj accused would reveal that Smt. Saroj, wife of accused was informed about his arrest. The arrest memo bears signatures of Smt. Saroj in column no. 8. PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander deposed that Head Constable Satish Kumar returned to the office of Kuber Property with copy of FIR at about 1 a.m. and by then he had prepared rough site plan and recorded statements of witnesses and also inquired from Hans Raj. He further deposed that house of Hans Raj is situated in Block 2, Sector-21, Rohini. They stayed at the house of Hans Raj accused for 1/2 minutes only. The contents of arrest memo Ex.PW-20/D lend corroboration to the statement of PW-21, -:45:- the investigating officer.
PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan is another attesting witness to the recovery memo Ex.PW-20/C i.e. regarding the recoveries made from the polythene that was found lying in the boiler. SI Suraj Bhan deposed about recovery of the polythene found kept in a boiler. He further deposed that the incriminating material was turned into parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB' and seized vide memo Ex.PW-20/C. It is in his statement that after use the seal was handed over to Head Ct. Satish Kumar. In his cross examination he deposed that the writing work was done while sitting in one of the two rooms in Kuber Property. This is in consonance with the rough site plan Ex.PW-21/B. He further deposed that incriminating material recovered from the spot was sealed before dispatch of ruqqa. This finds support from contents of ruqqa. He even deposed about departure of Head Ct. Satish from the spot with ruqqa at about 11:45 p.m. and about his return to the spot with copy of FIR in an hour.
Had SI Suraj Bhan not been present on the given date, time and place, he could not depose about all material details like the items recovered from the polythene and the -:46:- recovery of polythene from the boiler, turning of the incriminating material into parcels, the parcels being sealed and seizure of the incriminating material vide recovery memo Ex.PW-20/C. In that situation, he could also not depose about entrustment of seal by investigating officer to the Head Ct. Satish Kumar and departure of the head constable to the Police Station with ruqqa and also about time of his return to the spot with copy of FIR.
Learned defence counsel referred to cross examination of PW-20 recorded on 24-04-2007 wherein he stated that his first statement was recorded after registration of the case and the 2nd statement was also recorded, on 30.03.2004, but he could not remember if the 2nd statement was recorded before or after production of the accused in court. Learned counsel also referred to the portion of statement of PW-20 where he deposed to have stated in his statement Ex.PW20/DA that 70 Indian Non Judicial Stamp Papers each worth Rs.5000/-, 99 sheets of Notarial Stamp and two stencils, were recovered from a polythene lying in a plate boiler, but this fact does not find mentioned in his previous statement Ex.PW-20/DA. Argument is that these facts make presence of PW-20 on the given date, time and -:47:- place doubtful.
It is true that this fact does not find mentioned in Ex.PW-20/DA but from the omission of this fact in Ex.PW- 20/DA it cannot be said that SI Suraj Bhan was not present at the spot i.e. the office of Kuber Property at the time of recoveries when PW-20 deposed about recovery of all other items from the polythene, no adverse inference can be drawn against PW-20 when he could not depose in his statement made before investigating officer the factum of recovery of only 70 stamp papers. Similarly, no adverse inference can be drawn when it does not stand recorded in his statement Ex.PW-20/DA made before the investigating officer about recovery of all the aforesaid objects "from the office of Kuber Property".
It is true that in Ex.PW-20/DA, the statement made by PW-20 before the investigating officer, it does not stand recorded that after use the seal was handed over to Head Ct. Satish Kumar, but from the contents of recovery memo Ex.PW-20/C attested by this witness (PW-20), it stands established that after use the seal was handed over by the investigating officer to Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Even the investigating officer has categorically deposed about -:48:- handing over of seal by him to Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Statement of the investigating officer further finds corroboration from the statement of PW-22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar when he categorically stated that after use the seal was handed over to him.
In view of above discussion, it appears that somehow the factum of recovery of 70 Indian Non Judicial Stamp Papers, Notarial Stamp, two stencils and factum of handing over of seal to Head Ct. Satish could not find mention in Ex.PW-20/DA i.e. previous statement made by the witness, because of some inadvertent mistake on the part of investigating officer at the time of recording thereof.
A perusal of personal search memo Ex.PW-20/E and arrest memo Ex.PW-20/D of Hans Raj accused would reveal that these bears attestation not only of Head Ct. Satish Kumar but also of SI Suraj Bhan. In the arrest memo, the place of arrest of Hans Raj accused stands recorded as Kuber Property, Rajni Colony, Village Begum Pur, Delhi, and the time of arrest stands recorded as 1 a.m. During cross examination of PW-20 or of any other witness, learned defence counsel have not been able to bring on record that on 30/03/2004 during the period from 07:30 p.m. to 1 a.m., -:49:- SI Suraj Bhan was present somewhere else, or that he was made to attest these documents incriminating recovery memos while sitting in the office of Operation Cell. Many incriminating documents were recovered from the office of Kuber Property and statements of many witnesses were recorded, at the spot. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel to reject the testimony of PW-20 regarding recoveries from the office of Kuber Property and arrest of Hans Raj accused.
Learned defence counsel referred to the cross examination of PW-12 Ct. Satish and then to a statement Ex.PW12/DA and pointed out that in this first statement of the witness recorded by the investigating officer, there is no mention of recoveries effected from the office of Kuber Property, and argued that this omission makes doubtful presence of PW-12 at the time of recoveries from the office of Kuber Property. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel to disbelieve the entire statement of PW12 Ct. Satish simply because of this omission in his first statement Ex.PW12/DA. Had PW12 Ct. Satish not been present at the time of raid at the office of Kuber Property, he could not depose about all details regarding their arrival near -:50:- Rajni Colony, handing over of currency note to Head Ct. Satish Kumar, departure of Head Ct. Satish Kumar and SI Suraj Bhan to the office of Kuber Property, making of disclosure statement by Hans Raj, leading of Hans Raj accused to the house of Ashok Goel accused and from there to the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused. PW-12 categorically stated that there were two rooms of the office of the Kuber Property and that the two rooms were not interconnected. He further deposed that at the office of Kuber Property its rough site plan was prepared. From all this his presence at the office of Kuber Property at the time of recoveries from the boiler, cannot be doubted.
From the above discussed evidence, it stands established that search of polythene found kept in wooden boiler at the office of Kuber Property led to recovery of Non Indian Judicial Stamp Papers Ex.PW-12/1 to PW-12/16, three of Indian non-judicial stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- each collectively exhibited as Ex. PW12/24 and Non Judicial Stamp Papers collectively exhibited as Ex.PW12/22, Notarial stamps Ex.PW-12/17 to PW-12/21 and remaining collectively exhibited as Ex.PW-12/23, stencils Ex.P4 to P6 and C&F Excise Forms collectively exhibited as Ex.P1. -:51:- Making of Disclosure Statement by Hans Raj accused, Recovery from Ashok Goel accused and Arrest of Ashok Goel accused As noticed above, case of prosecution is that Hans Raj accused was arrested at about 1 a.m. and after his arrest he made disclosure statement. According to PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander, Hans Raj accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/F and from the house of Hans Raj accused they went to the house of Ashok Goel accused i.e. B-4/228 A, Lawrence Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi. In his cross examination, PW-21 deposed that after leaving the house of Hans Raj accused at about 01:50 a.m., they reached the house of Ashok Goel accused at about 2 a.m. They reached there after having covered a distance from the house of Hans Raj accused to the house of Ashok Goel accused in the aforesaid Tata 407 vehicle.
According to PW-21, search conducted at Ashok Goel accused led to recovery of five demand drafts of Bank of India. He further deposed that from a briefcase lying at the house of Ashok Goel accused 30 C&F Forms of Delhi States; 30 C&F Forms of West Bengal State; and 25 C & F Forms of Haryana State, were recovered. There were also C -:52:- & F Forms of other States namely M.P., Punjab and Rajasthan, but the witness could not tell their number. However, according to him these C & F Forms were signed by him, turned into a parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB'. It is in his statement that each of the demand drafts recovered from the house of Ashok Goel, was of the value of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) but this is not in consonance with contents of memo Ex.PW20/G. PW-21 further stated that he signed the demand draft and turned them into parcel and sealed the parcel with the aforesaid seal. The witness also deposed about arrest of accused Ashok Goel, preparation of arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW-20/H and PW- 20/J. He also proved seizure of the demand drafts and the C & F Forms vide memo Ex.PW-20/G. PW-20 and PW22 have deposed in line with statement of PW-21 about recoveries from the house of Ashok Goel accused.
As regards disclosure statement attributed to Hans Raj accused, it may be mentioned here that Inspector Ram Chander while appearing as PW-21 did not state even atleast the admissible part of disclosure statement made by Hans Raj accused. PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan attesting witness to -:53:- disclosure statement deposed that Hans Raj accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/F to the effect that he, Ashok Aggarwal, Ashok Goel and Jagdish, started illegal business of proving fake stamp papers and C & F Forms; initially they were running the business in Tri Nagar, Lekhu Nagar, but thereafter Jagdish shifted the factory to Peeragarhi; and that he could get his companions arrested and also get the recovery effected from them.
A perusal of disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/F would reveal that therein Hans Raj accused is stated to have offered to get Jagdish and Ashok Goel arrested and also to get recovered fake documents The other attesting witness to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/F is Head Constable Satish (PW-22). While making statement in court, PW-22 Head Ct. Satish did not narrate any of the content of the disclosure statement. As noticed above, even the investigating officer did not narrate any contents of the disclosure statement. Thus, main stay of prosecution regarding involvement of Ashok Goel accused is on the recoveries effected from his house.
Learned defence counsel has argued that despite ample opportunities the investigating officer did not associate -:54:- anyone from the public before conducting raid at the house of Ashok Goel and as such no reliance should be placed on the statements of the prosecution witnesses so far as recoveries from Ashok Goel accused are concerned.
So far as non joining of witnesses from the locality where house of Ashok Goel accused situated is concerned, PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander admitted in his cross examination that wife of Ashok Goel accused was present at his house. He tried to explain that because of odd hours no one joined the party at the time of their arrival at the house of Ashok Goel accused. He further stated that door bells of the two houses situated on the right side and two house situated on the left side of Ashok Goel accused were pushed but none replied. PW-22 Head Ct. Satish contradicted the statement made by the investigating officer by stating that the investigating officer did not call anyone from the neighbourhood. As mentioned above, the well settled law is that statements of official witnesses cannot be rejected outrightly merely because of their official status and that absence of corroboration from independent source puts the court on guard to scrutinize the statements of police officials with more care and caution.
-:55:-
A perusal of arrest memo of Ashok Goel accused would reveal that he was arrested at about 02:45 a.m. from his house situated in Lawrence Road area and his wife Smt. Neelam was informed about his arrest but she refused to sign the memo. The contents of arrest memo Ex.PW-20/H are in consonance with the statement made by PW-21 about presence of wife of Ashok Goel accused at the house at the time of raid and search.
Had nothing incriminating been recovered from the house of Ashok Goel accused on the night intervening 29/30-03-2004, his wife could file complaint before Senior Police Officers that during that night her husband was picked up from the house and falsely implicated. But there is nothing on record to suggest that either Ashok Goel himself or his wife or anyone else at any point of time filed complaint against the police alleging planting of incriminating material or fabrication of evidence so as to falsely implicate him.
PW-22 Head Ct. Satish deposed about recovery of five demand drafts and Excise Forms from a suitcase lying at the house of Ashok Goel accused. He further deposed that demand drafts and Excise Forms were turned into parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB' and after -:56:- use the seal once again was handed over to him. The witness proved recovery vide memo Ex.PW-22/G regarding seizure of demand drafts and Excise Forms. He also proved his attestation on arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW-20/H and PW-20/G. A perusal of recovery memo EX.Pw-20/G would reveal that it bears attestation of Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Contents of this memo support the version narrated by PW-22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar about recovery of five demand drafts and C & F Excise Forms of various States, from a briefcase lying at the house of Ashok Goel accused. It stands recorded in this memo that demand drafts and the C & F Forms were turned into parcel and then sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB'. The arrest memo Ex.PW-20/H and personal search memo Ex.PW-20/J also bear attestation of Head Ct. Satish Kumar. Attestation of these three memos by Head Ct. Satish Kumar on 30-03-2004 establishes his presence at the house of Ashok Goel accused at the time of recoveries of demand drafts and C & F Excise Forms.
The other attesting witness SI Suraj Bhan (PW-
20) deposed that from the house of Hans Raj accused they reached the house of Ashok Goel accused at B-4 situated in -:57:- Lawrence Road and on reaching there all the facts were brought to the notice of Ashok Goel accused. He further deposed about recovery of demand drafts of Bank of India from a briefcase lying at the house of Ashok Goel. Further according to him from the same briefcase, 30 C & F forms each of West Bengal State and Delhi State; 25 C & F Forms of Haryana State; 5 C & F Form each of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab State; 10 C & F Forms of Rajasthan State, were recovered. He also deposed about turning of the demand drafts and the C & F Forms into parcel, sealing of the parcel and their seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW-20/G. In his cross examination it stands recorded that factum of recovery of five demand drafts and C & F Forms from briefcase does not stand recorded in his statement Ex.PW-23/DA. It is true that word briefcase does not stand recorded but only from this omission entire statement of PW- 20 regarding recovery of demand drafts and C & F Forms from Ashok Goel accused cannot be thrown away. It is in the cross examination of the witnesses that Ashok Goel accused himself opened the door of his house at the time raiding party accompanied by Hans Raj accused reached there after 2 a.m. PW-20 corroborated statements of other witnesses by -:58:- stating that they remained at the house of Ashok Goel accused from 02/2:15 a.m. to 03:45 a.m. He also categorically stated that wife of Ashok Goel accused was present at the house. The witnesses are in consonance with each other that the briefcase out of which Demand Drafts and C & F Forms were recovered was lying under the centre table in the room raided by the police party.
It is true that PW-12 Constable Satish stated that demand drafts were recovered from pant of Ashok Goel accused, Excise Forms were recovered from an iron box, and as pointed out by learned defence counsel, PW-12 has made contradictory statement, but simply because of contradictory statement only on this aspect, his entire testimony on other aspects cannot be thrown away as Maxim "Falsus in uno Falsus in Omnibus" is not applicable to criminal cases. Furthermore, other PWs have corroborated each other as regards recovery of demand drafts and Excise Forms.
Learned defence counsel referred to the cross examination of PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan wherein he could not tell as to of what material the briefcase was made of, and argued that in view of this material, discrepancy in his statement, his presence at the house of Ashok Goel accused -:59:- becomes highly doubtful.
It is true that PW-20 could not tell in his cross examination as to of which material the briefcase was made of, but it does not adversely affect the version narrated by him when he explained that he could not tell about it, having not touched the briefcase. The witness categorically stated that briefcase was opened by Ashok Goel accused himself. Statement of PW-20 finds corroboration from the statement of PW-21, the investigating officer, wherein he stated that briefcase was lying under the Central Table inside the house and that Ashok Goel accused opened the briefcase. The investigating officer explained that briefcase was of plastic and dark brown colour with raxine cover. Even in recovery memo Ex.PW-20/G it stands recorded that demand drafts and C & F Forms were taken out of the briefcase by Ashok Goel accused himself. Keeping in view all this, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned defence counsel to discard the entire statement of PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan who could not tell about the material of which the briefcase was made of. I also do not find any merit in the contention of learned defence counsel to brush aside the entire statement of the witness only because the briefcase was not seized by -:60:- the investigating officer, the reason being that the briefcase was not the case property or of any significance. Making of Disclosure Statement by Ashok Goel accused, Recovery of Stamp Papers from Ashok Aggarwal and Arrest of Ashok Aggarwal accused Case of prosecution is that from the house of Ashok Goel accused situated in Lawrence Road area, the police party was led to the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused situated in Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, where four counterfeit stamp papers, each worth Rs.5000/- were recovered from a suitcase, and the seizure memo, personal search memo and arrest memo were attested by Head Ct. Satish Kumar and SI Suraj Bhan. PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan deposed that Ashok Goel accused made disclosure statement to the effect that Ashok Aggarwal accused used to sell stamp papers etc. which were printed by them and that he could lead the police to Ashok Aggarwal and get the recovery effected. Disclosure statement of Ashok Goel accused is Ex.PW-20/K. Ex.PW-20/K bears signatures of PW-20 at point A and that of Inspector Ram Chander at point B. PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander stated about making of disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/K by Ashok Goel but did not -:61:- narrate the contents thereof. According to him, Ashok Goel accused led them to the house of Ashok Aggarwal and search of house of Ashok Aggarwal led to recovery of four fake stamp papers each worth Rs.5000/-, from a suitcase lying there. PW-21 then proved recovery memo Ex.Pw-20/L by stating that four stamp papers were turned into a parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB' and then taken into possession. PW-22 Head Ct. Satish Kumar, the other attesting witness to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/K deposed that Ashok Goel accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/K and it was thereafter that the investigating officer recorded his statement [that of PW-22] and from there they went to the house of Ashok Aggarwal situated at B-39, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He further deposed that from a suitcase lying at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused, four stamp papers were recovered and that each stamp paper was worth Rs.5000/- All these stamp papers were turned into parcel and sealed with the aforesaid seal after the seal was collected by investigating officer from him. The witness then proved recovery memo Ex.PW-20/L. It is also in his statement that after use the investigating officer handed over the seal to him.
-:62:-
A perusal of disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/K would reveal that therein Ashok Goel accused disclosed besides other facts, that he used to sell stamp paper to Ashok Aggarwal, resident of B-39, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi. It was only in pursuance of disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/K that the police came to know of Ashok Aggarwal accused, his residence and about sale of stamp papers to him by Ashok Goel. Ashok Goel accused was arrested at about 02:45 a.m., as stands recorded in arrest memo Ex.PW-20/H and it was thereafter that the raiding party was led to the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused.
PW20 SI Suraj Bhan deposed that their party remained at the house of Ashok Goel accused till 03:45 a.m. and at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused till 05/5:30 a.m. Arrest memo Ex.PW-20/M proved by the witness on record would reveal that Ashok Aggarwal accused was arrested from B-39, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, at 04:20 a.m. It stands recorded in column no. 8 of memo Ex.PW-20/M that wife of Ashok Aggarwal accused refused to sign the memo. Had Ashok Aggarwal not been arrested from his house on 30-03-2004 at 04:20 a.m., this fact of refusal of his wife to sign the arrest memo would not have been -:63:- mentioned by the investigating officer. It is in the statement of PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan that house of Ashok Aggarwal accused was on the first floor.
It is true that in his cross examination, as pointed out by learned defence counsel, PW-20 could not tell as to whether there was any veranda of the building of the house of Ashok Aggarwal or if the owners of the building were residing on the ground floor of that building or if Hari Kishan Mittal, one of the owner of the building used to reside on the portion in front of the portion of Ashok Aggarwal accused, but all this does not create any doubt about the presence of SI Suraj Bhan at the house of Ashok Aggarwal on 30-03-2004 at the time of recovery of the four stamp papers from the suit case. It is not case of the accused that Ashok Aggarwal was not living in any portion of the building no. B-39, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi. It is in the statement of PW-20 that on reaching the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused, the accused was informed about all the facts and five Indian Non Judicial Papers were recovered from the suit case lying at his house. He further deposed that these were turned into a parcel and the parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SB' and then sealed parcel was seized vide -:64:- memo Ex.PW-20/L. The witness identified his attestation on the memo EX.PW-20/L and also on the arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW-20/M and Ex.PW-20/N. It is true that actually "four" stamp papers were recovered from the suitcase lying at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused but PW-20 deposed about recovery of "five" stamp papers but this contradiction does not create any doubt in the version put forth by the prosecution when the PW-20 has narrated the manner of recovery of the stamp papers from a suitcase lying at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused and also proved his attestation on the documents prepared there. Furthermore, PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander has categorically stated about recovery of four stamp papers from the suitcase lying at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused in presence of SI Suraj Bhan, Head Ct. Satish Kumar and other members of the party.
PW-21 fully supported the case of prosecution by stating in his cross examination that Ashok Goel accused disclosed in his disclosure statement about sale of stamp papers to Ashok Aggarwal and that they left the house of Ashok Goel at about 03:45 a.m. and reached the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused within 15 minutes. PW-20 SI Suraj -:65:- Bhan also stated in his cross examination that house of Ashok Aggarwal accused was at a distance of about 4/5 kilometres and that they reached there having left the house of Ashok Goel accused at about 03:45 a.m. Furthermore, PW-22 Head Ct. Satish supported the prosecution version by stating that four stamp papers were recovered from the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused. It is in his statement that the four stamp papers were recovered from a suitcase.
Learned defence counsel referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses and argued that no reliance can be placed on their testimony when they are discrepant on material aspects of the case. To appreciate the contention raised by learned defence counsel, I have gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses. To my mind the contradictions pointed out by learned defence counsel are not material in nature. One of the contradictions as pointed out is that PW-20 SI Suraj Bhan displayed ignorance if the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused was having a boundary wall or as to whether there any gate of the building after having entered the main gate or if there was any veranda of the building. PW-21 Inspector Ram Chander, stated in his cross examination that house of Ashok -:66:- Aggarwal accused was not having any boundary wall and that door of the main entrance of the house of Ashok Aggarwal was of iron. PW-22 stated in his cross examination that there was no main entrance to the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused and that they went to the house of Ashok Aggarwal through staircase. PW-22 displayed ignorance if the staircase was having any door or not. It is true that these PWs displayed ignorance about the aforesaid facts but their testimony cannot be thrown away simply because they displayed ignorance on these minor aspects particularly when PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 have fully supported the case of prosecution regarding the raid at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused and recovery of stamp papers and also the proceedings conducted at the spot.
Learned defence counsel referred to the statements of the witnesses and argued that despite opportunity none from the same building was associated at the time of recovery and as such no reliance can be placed on the statements of these police officials who are highly interested in the success of their case. Learned defence counsel also referred to cross examination of PW-3 Hari Kishan Mittal recorded on 03.07.2007 wherein he denied that -:67:- any police party came to their house or arrested Ashok Aggarwal accused.
As noticed above, absence of corroboration from independent source puts the court on guard to carefully scrutinize the statements of police officials and merely because of their official status, their testimony cannot be rejected outrightly.
Prosecution examined PW-3 Hari Kishan simply to prove factum of tenancy of Ashok Aggarwal under his (PW-3) brother namely Suresh Chander. It is true that PW-3 Hari Kishan Mittal stated in his cross examination recorded on 03-07-2007 that on 30-03-2004 no police party came to his house or arrested Ashok Aggarwal accused but he admitted that as on 30-03-2004 Ashok Aggarwal was living in a portion of the first floor as a tenant of his brother Suresh Chander. At the same time, when we advert to the cross examination of PW-3 recorded on 12-09-2006 it would transpire that Ashok Aggarwal himself suggested to the witness (PW-3) that police picked up him from the house under his tenancy. No doubt, PW-3 denied this suggestion and further stated that he learnt about arrest of Ashok Aggarwal, 3/4 days after his arrest, but the suggestion put to -:68:- this witness by the accused himself reveals that according to him he was picked up from the house under his tenancy.
As noticed above, wife of Ashok Aggarwal accused was present at the house at the time of recovery from and arrest of her husband but she refused to sign the arrest memo. She could file a complaint before senior police officers about false implication of her husband but there is nothing on record to suggest that she filed any such complaint against the police officials at any point of time. PW-3 being one of the landlords, feeling aggrieved from the raid conducted at the house of Ashok Aggarwal accused, during the night, could file a complaint against the police officials. But PW-3 Hari Kishan also does not appear to have filed any complaint against the police levelling allegations that on such and such date and time police picked up Ashok Aggarwal from the house under his tenancy or falsely showed his arrest from the tenanted room.
Opinion of the Expert regarding C & F Forms Case of prosecution is that PW8 Constable Rakesh Kumar collected two sealed parcels from MHC (M) Sultan Puri on 28-4-2004 and deposited the same at Bikrikar Bhawan, ITO, alongwith a letter, without tampering with the -:69:- same. While appearing in court PW-8 has fully supported this version and his statement has gone unchallenged.
PW-6 Sh. V. K. Awasthi, Sales Tax Officer, has been examined to prove his report Ex.PW-6/A with details contained in Ex.PW-6/B in respect of Forms collectively exhibited as P1. According to PW-6, on 28-4-2004, two sealed parcels containing C & F Forms were received from police officials of Operation Cell and he submitted report that the forms taken out of the two sealed parcels did not belong to their department. It is also in his statement the 'F' Forms purported to be of Govt. of NCT of Delhi were not genuine. He also deposed that Govt. of NCT of Delhi does not print forms of other States like M.P., Haryana, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Punjab.
In his cross examination PW-6 explained that they did not deem it appropriate to send the forms collectively exhibited as P1 to Govt. Press Nasik as these forms were bearing serial numbers already distributed by their office to concerned Ward Officer for onward distribution to the dealers. According to the witness, C Forms are generally obtained by the buyers whereas F forms are got issued by Transferee of Stock.
-:70:-
From the statement of PW-6 and reports Ex.PW6/A and PW-6/B, it can safely be said that prosecution has established that out of the forms collectively exhibited as P1, Form 'F' on which words 'Govt. of NCT of Delhi' were found printed were not genuine.
As noticed above, prosecution has also established that Hans Raj accused was found in possession of two stencils (having three plastic sheets Ex.PW4 to P6), in respect of C & F Forms. It also stands established on record that Ashok Goel accused was found in possession various C&F Forms pertaining to different States including the State of Delhi.
From the evidence discussed above, it can safely be said that Hans Raj accused Ashok Goel accused kept in their possession C & F Forms of different States, containing the fake / forged Forms meant for State of Delhi, and also that Hans Raj accused was found in possession of two stencils (Ex.P4 to P6 - three sheets).
Genuineness of Demand Drafts As regards demand drafts, prosecution has examined PW-19 constable Satish Kumar. According to PW19, on 15-04-2004, Inspector Ram Chander handed over -:71:- to him a letter addressed to Bank of India and he took the same to P.S. Sultan Puri. Further he collected a sealed packet from P.S. Sultan Puri and reached Bank of India, Connaught Place, New Delhi, and delivered the sealed parcel there. It is also in his statement that Branch Manager opened the sealed parcel, checked the documents and then prepared his report. He also deposed to have collected report from the Bank Manager alongwith the parcels containing the document and to have handed over the same to MHC (M). Statement of PW-19 has gone unchallenged.
Then there is statement of PW-10 Sh. M. K Aggarwal, then Senior Branch Manager, who examined the five demand drafts taken out of the sealed parcel, delivered to him on 15-04-2004. According to PW-10, these five demand drafts were found to be fake as these were only colour photocopy of demand draft of their Bank. PW-10 has proved his report Ex.PW-10/A in this respect. Bank drafts are Ex.PW10/1 to PW-10/5. It is true that at the time of examination of PW-10 these demand drafts were not found contained in a sealed envelope but it stands recorded in his statement as submitted by ld. Addl. PP that sealed parcel was opened on 30-4-2005 with a view to supply copies of -:72:- documents. There is nothing in the statement of PW-10 to disbelieve his testimony or doubt his report Ex.PW-10/A. From the above discussed evidence, it stands established that Ashok Goel accused kept in his possession these fake demand drafts.
Genuineness of Stamp Papers As regards stamp papers, prosecution has examined PW11 Sh. H. P. Sharma, the then Treasury Officer, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. He deposed to have received letter Ex.PW-11/A from Incharge Operation Cell, North West District, Delhi Police, vide which certain queries were raised. The witness also deposed to have given his parawise reply as contained in Ex.PW-11/B. Statement of PW11 has gone unchallenged for want of cross examination. Vide this reply, the witness replied that court fee stamps of the denominations above Rs.500/; non judicial stamps above denominations of Rs.500/-; Special Adhesive Stamps of any denomination, used to be sold from Treasury Counter directly. It also finds mentioned in his reply Ex.PW-11/B that notarial stamps used to be released to the Post Office for their sale to public from their counter. He also replied that Indian Security Press, Govt. of India, Nasik Road, is the -:73:- authorised agency to confirm genuineness of recovered stamps/non judicial stamp papers.
Then there is statement of PW-16 Ct. Bagvatendra Singh. According to him on 24-04-2004, he
collected four sealed parcels from P.S. Sultan Puri and reached Indian Security Press, Nasik Road, City Nasik. It was on 27-04-2004 that he handed over the sealed parcels to the official of the Security Press. According to him, all these parcels were opened in his presence and out of the documents taken from them, 22 non judicial stamp papers were got signed from him. He also deposed to have collected receipts from the official of Security Press and deposited the Road Certificate with MHC (M). The witness then identified his signatures on non judicial stamp papers collectively exhibited as ExP3 and Ex.PW12/1 to PW-12/21. It is also in the statement of PW-16 that in June 2004 he collected three sealed parcels from MHC (M) P.S. Sultan Puri for their delivery at CFSL Hyderabad. According to PW-16, out of three sealed parcels one was sealed with seal bearing impression 'SB', whereas the other was bearing the seal of Bikrikar Bhawan and the third parcel was bearing seal of RBI. He deposited all these three parcels at CFSL Hyderabad -:74:- without tampering with the seal, as further stated by him.
Statement of PW-16 is in consonance with the statement made by PW-18, the concerned MHC (M) - Head CT. Yashbir Singh of PS Sultan Puri. From the statements of both these PWs it can safely be said that prosecution has ruled out possibility of tampering with sealed parcels during the period they remained in the custody of MHC (M) and till their deposit at Quarter concerned.
PW-14 Sh. C. B. Gurkal, Administrative Officer, Indian Security Press has also deposed in line with PW-16 so far as deposit of four sealed parcels at Indian Security Press by PW-16 on 27-4-2004 is concerned. PW-14 further deposed that the contents of the parcels were opened in presence of representative of ACP, and details were mentioned in Ex.PW-14/A. He further deposed to have signed the contents of the parcels to Forgery and Detection Cell of Indian Security Press, for examination and report. He further deposed to have received report from Sh. Shashi Kant Barde and to have forwarded the same to ACP (Operation).
Then there is statement of PW15 Shashi Kant Barde, who was serving as Expert in detection of Counterfeit Security products printed by Indian Security Press and -:75:- Reserve Bank of India. According to PW15, he submitted report Ex. PW15/A on examination of following articles i.e. Non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- Ex. P3; 5 Non judicial stamp papers of Rs. 5000/- each Ex 12/1 to 12/5 and non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 5000/- Ex. PW12/16; non judicial stamp papers of Rs. 100/- each Ex. PW 12/6 to 13; non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500/- Ex PW12/14; non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- Ex. PW12/15; 5 sheets of Notarial stamps of Rs. 5/- each, each sheet containing 50 stamps, Ex. PW12/17 to 21. A perusal of report Ex. PW15/A submitted by PW15 would reveal that all the non-judicial stamp papers of the denomination of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 5000/- were found forged. It also finds mentioned in the report that notarial stamps examined by him were also found forged. It may be mentioned here that aforesaid items examined by PW15 were picked up at random from the lot . However, all the five sheets of notarial stamps were examined by PW15. There is nothing in the statement of PW15 to suggest as to why the report submitted by him should be disbelieved. PW15 further stated that he had put his signatures and official seal on each of the items examined by him by way of mark of identification. So, the identity of the -:76:- items sent for analysis also stands established on record.
In view of the above discussed evidence, it stands established that prosecution has proved on record that the non-judicial stamp papers and notarial stamps recovered from Hans Raj accused i.e. from the Office of Kuber Property and the one sold by him to HC Satish Kumar, were found forged. It also stands proved that notarial stamps recovered from the possession of Hans Raj accused were also forged documents.
It also stands proved that the non-judicial stamp papers recovered from Ashok Aggarwal accused were also forged documents.
Printing of fake documents:
Case of prosecution is that the accused persons were involved in printing of fake non-judicial stamp papers, demand drafts, notarial stamps and C&F Excise forms. PW2 Hemant Tomar has been examined to prove letting out of premises No. 764/46, Block A, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi, to Ashok Goel accused on 20.10.2001 at the rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month, for a period of 11 months, vide agreement Ex. PW2/B. PW2 also deposed about copy of seizure of agreement vide memo Ex. PW2/A. However, in -:77:- his cross examination, PW2 denied to have stated before the police that the said tenanted premises was used by Ashok Goel accused and his associates for running a printing press or that during the period of tenancy of 11 months printing press was run by the accused persons in the tenanted premises. The witness was put leading questions by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, but nothing useful to the prosecution could be elicited from him on this aspect.
PW4 Ranbir Singh deposed to have let out his plot No. 487/10, in Bankwali street, Peera Garhi, Delhi, to one Jagdish Kumar. According to PW4, he let out the plot through Pandit Jagdish Kumar, a property dealer, and Jagdish Kumar, the tenant, installed a printing press in that plot for about 7/8 months and thereafter vacated the plot. It may be mentioned here that Jagdish Kumar stands discharged vide order dated 15.04.2006. PW4 did not support the case of prosecution that he had let out the plot to Hans Raj, Ashok Goel and Jagdish Kumar or that he stated so before the police. He also did not support the case of prosecution that Hans Raj, Ashok Goel and Jagdish Kumar installed a printing press or that he so stated before the police. The witness displayed ignorance about Hans Raj and -:78:- Ashok Goel, accused present in court.
PW7 Vivek @ Pappu has been examined to prove installation of electric connection No. 393 in a temple, at the instance of H.r. Vats, who furnished his address as Plot No. 55, Naveen Vihar, Begumpura Extension. PW7 proved receipt Ex. PW7/A issued on receiving a sum of Rs. 2000/-. But, it may be mentioned here that from the statement of PW7, it does not stand proved as to at which place the electric connection was installed by NDPL. PW7 categorically stated that Hans Raj and Ashok Goel accused could not bring to him any document in respect of temple where the electric connection was to be installed.
Then there is statement of PW13 Gurmeet Singh of IDBI Bank to the effect that Ashok Goel accused acted as introducer for opening of account by Jagdish Chander, on 08.09.2002. Prosecution examined PW13 to establish common intention of Ashok Goel and Jagdish Chander but simply from the fact that Ashok Goel acted as introducer for opening of account by Jagdish Chander, it cannot be said that they had any common intention so far as present case is concerned, particularly when prosecution has not been able to establish factum of installation of printing press by any of -:79:- the accused. It is also proved from the statements of PW12, 20, 21 and 22 that no printing press could be recovered or found installed at the places to which the accused persons led the party on 30.03.2004.
In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish that any of the accused printed any of the above referred to fake documents.
Conclusion In view of the above discussion, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to bring home charge to Hans Raj and Ashok Aggarwal accused for offences u/s 255, 256, 467, 468 or 474 IPC; and charge for the offence u/s 467 and 468 IPC against Ashok Goel accused. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted of these offences.
In view of the above findings, this court holds that prosecution has fully established its case against Ashok Aggarwal accused for an offence u/s 259 IPC (for having kept in his possession counterfeit Non Judicial Stamp Papers); against Ashok Goel accused for an offence u/s 474 IPC (for having kept in his possession forged demand drafts) and -:80:- against Hans Raj accused for offences u/s 258 IPC (for having sold counterfeit stamp paper to Head Ct. Satish Kumar), u/s 259 IPC (for keeping in his possession counterfeit non judicial stamp papers), and u/s 472 IPC (for having kept in his possession two stencils of Central Sales Tax Form), and as such all these three accused persons are held guilty and convicted thereunder. Let convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court on Dated: 21st of July, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini: Delhi -:81:- IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS ROHINI DELHI SC No. : 79 of 2006 dated 02-1-2006 Date of Decision: 21st of July, 2007 STATE Versus
1. Hans Raj S/o Sh. Ganga Swaroop, R/o H.NO. 186, Sector 21, Pocket 11, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Ashok Goel S/o late Sh. Jagat Ram R/o H.No. 2961/220, Vishram Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
3. Ashok Aggarwal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop R/o House No. B-3, Sawan Park, Delhi.
4. Jagdish (since discharged vide order dt.15-4-06) S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village & Post Office Kathura, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
FIR No. 333/2004 PS Sultan Puri U/s. 259, 474,258, 259, 472 IPC -:82:- ORDER ON SENTENCE 21-07-2007 Present: Addl. P.P. for State.
Ashok Goel and Hans Raj convicts in J.C, with counsel Sh. Manmohan Satija.
Ashok Aggarwal convict on bail with counsel Sh. Ram Kishan, Advocate.
I have heard learned Addl. PP for State and learned defence counsel and the convicts on the point of sentence. Ld. Addl. PP submits that keeping in view the serious nature of the offences pertaining to loss of revenue to the State / Govt. of India, maximum sentence, be awarded to the convicts.
On the other hand the convicts and their learned counsel have prayed for leniency on the ground that there is no record of previous conviction against any of them.
As noticed above, convict Ashok Aggarwal kept in his possession fake non judicial stamp papers; whereas Ashok Goel convict kept in his possession fake demand drafts and Hans Raj convict indulged in sale of counterfeit Govt. Stamp - Non Judicial Stamp Paper, kept in his possession a number of counterfeit Non Judicial Stamp -:83:- Papers, counterfeit Notarial Stamps and two stencils for making of Central Sales Tax Form, keeping in view all this, I hereby sentence the convicts as under:
Sentence in respect of Ashok Aggarwal accused S.N Offence Substantiative Fine Sentence I.D of Imprisonment in Rs. payment of fine u/s.
(R.I.) (R.I.) 1) 259 IPC One year Rs.20,000/- Four months Sentence in respect of Ashok Goel accused S.N Offence Substantiative Fine Sentence I.D of Imprisonment in Rs. payment of fine u/s. (R.I.) (R.I.) 1) 474 IPC One & half Rs.20,000/- Four months Year Sentence in respect of Hans Raj accused S.N Offence Substantiative Fine Sentence I.D of u/s. Imprisonment in Rs. payment of fine (R.I.) (R.I.) 1) 258 IPC Two Years Rs.5,000/- One month 2) 259 IPC Six Years Rs.25,000/- Six months 3) 472 IPC Five Years Rs.25,000/- Six months
Keeping in view that Hans Raj, Ashok Aggarwal and Ashok Goel convicts remained in custody during investigation, inquiry and trial, period of such detention, be set off against sentence awarded today, while taking into consideration the provisions of section 428 Cr.P.C. All -:84:- substantiative sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Case property be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of appeal/revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof. File be consigned to record room.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on Dated: 21st of July, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini: Delhi