Delhi District Court
Narender Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY GARG, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)
(CBI)18, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Criminal Revision No. 05/2022
CNR No: DL CT110001012022
In Re:
1. Narender Singh,
S/o Sh. Khan Chand,
R/o S389, Second Floor, Greater KailashII,
New Delhi110048.
2. Prahlad,
S/o Sh. Ghamadi Singh,
R/o C45, Shalimar Garden, ExtensionII,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. ....... Petitioners
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Through Director,
E.O.U.VI, CGO Complex,
New Delhi. ....... Respondent
Date of institution of the revision petition : 21.02.2022
Date on which judgment was reserved : 29.03.2022
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 04.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under Section 397 CrPC impugns the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the learned CMM in CBI Case CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 1 of 12 No. 461/2019, whereby the charge under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 258 & 259 IPC and Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 was ordered to be framed against the petitioners/accused persons.
2. The brief background relevant for the disposal of the revision petition is that while investigating FIR No. 803/1999 of PS Defence Colony relating to counterfeit stamps, Inspector Puran Singh received a source information that accused Narender Singh (petitioner No. 1), Proprietor of M/s. Blue Star Services, was running a racket of printing and sale of counterfeit Government stamps leviable on foreign bills, insurance and share transfer etc.. On 07.12.2000, Inspector Puran Singh conducted search of foreign bill stamps available in the office of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited and seized 375 counterfeit stamps of denomination of Rs. 100/ each, which were reportedly supplied by accused Narender Singh. Upon being informed that M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited had already placed an order for supply of foreign bill stamps worth Rs. 1 lac on M/s. Blue Star Services and delivery was expected on 08.12.2000, a trap was laid and accused Prahlad (petitioner No. 2), who was the employee of M/s. Blue Star Services, was apprehended on 08.12.2000, when he came to deliver the same. The said stamps were found to be counterfeit. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 878/2000 under Sections 258, 259, 260 & 120B IPC was registered at PS Kalkaji on the same day and the investigation of CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 2 of 12 the case was entrusted to Inspector Puran Singh. On 10.12.2000, the fake stamps of Rs. 12 lacs approximately were recovered from the house of one Khacheru Khan in Dakshinpuri on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Prahlad. On 19.01.2001, Sh. B. P. Shahi, Functional Head (Administration) of M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries, apprised Inspector Puran Singh that he had come across a news item dated 05.01.2001 published in Times of India that M/s. Blue Star Services was involved in selling of counterfeit stamps and produced 244 foreign bill stamps of Rs. 100/ each purchased from M/s. Blue Star Services for inspection. The said stamps were seized and samples thereof were sent to the India Security Press (ISP), Nashik for opinion. In the report dated 30.06.2004 submitted by the ISP, it was opined that the same were counterfeit stamps. Investigation revealed that a total amount of Rs. 2,29,669/ had been paid by M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries to M/s. Blue Star Services between February, 2000 to November, 2000 for purchase of stamps through cheques, which had been cleared in the account of M/s. Blue Star Services opened by accused Narender Singh. During investigation of the case, the Delhi Police came to the conclusion that accused Narender Singh and Prahlad had links with coaccused J. K. Singh, Ashish Chakravarthy, Andalamma, M. Krishnamurthy and T. R. Babu, who were involved in printing and/or supplying of counterfeit stamps. Subsequently, when the counterfeit stamp scam perpetrated by Abdul Karim Telgi came to light, FIR No. 878/2000 CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 3 of 12 was transferred for investigation to the CBI, which registered the instant FIR No. RC SIJ 2003 E 0002 dated 29.09.2003. After completion of investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet against accused Narender Singh and Prahlad for commission of offence under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 258 & 259 IPC and Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act and kept coaccused J. K. Singh, M. Krishnamurthy, Andalamma and T. R. Babu in column No. 2 of the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, it has been mentioned that during investigation of the case by the CBI, it was revealed that Inspector Puran Singh and some other officers of Delhi Police had criminally conspired with Abdul Karim Telgi and abetted the offence of sale of counterfeit stamps to various business houses during the period 19992002 and consequently, a separate FIR No. RC SIB 2004 E 0003 was registered on 20.02.2004 in that regard. It has been further mentioned in the charge sheet that since M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited used to purchase Foreign Bill Stamps from different firms namely M/s. Capital Services, M/s. Blue Star Services and M/s. Unique Consultants, it could not be ascertained as to which particular supplier had sold the counterfeit stamps of Rs. 37,500/ seized from its stock on 07.12.2000 and that investigation in that respect was left to be undertaken in the subsequent FIR No. RC SIB 2004 E 0003. The CBI further expressed doubt on the recovery of counterfeit stamps of Rs. 1 lac from accused Prahlad in the office of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited on 08.12.2000 as Sh. Ranjan Paul CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 4 of 12 and Sh. S. Viswanathan, who were independent witnesses to the seizure memo, stated that the said recovery was not effected in their presence and that they had put their signatures on the seizure memo subsequently upon being asked by Inspector Puran Singh. The CBI also suspected the recovery of fake stamps of Rs. 12 lacs approximately from the house of Khacheru Khan on 10.12.2000 on the pointing out of accused Prahlad as out of two boxes in which the seized documents were kept, only one box had been deposited in the malkhana. The CBI further came to the conclusion that the connection of accused Narender Singh and Prahlad with coaccused J. K. Singh, M. Krishnamurthy, Andalamma and Ashish Chakravarthy could not be established. Hence, the CBI had filed the charge sheet against accused Narender Singh and Prahlad primarily on the basis of the supply of counterfeit stamps to M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries. Vide order dated 27.01.2022, the trial court ordered for framing of charge under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 258 & 259 IPC and Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act. Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the transfer of investigation of the case from Delhi Police to the CBI, it was found by the CBI that the initial IO Inspector Puran Singh had criminally conspired with Abdul Karim Telgi and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, falsely implicated the persons whom Abdul CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 5 of 12 Karim Telgi considered obstacle in spreading his business of sale of counterfeit stamps and planted fake stamps on them. He has further submitted that since the CBI came to the conclusion that IO Inspector Puran Singh had apprehended the petitioner No. 2 without following the due legal procedure and got FIR No. 878/2000 registered by abusing his official position, it is clear that the entire investigation conducted by Inspector Puran Singh was tainted and no reliance could have been placed on the alleged seizure of fake stamps from M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries. He has also submitted that though the prosecution had initially set up a case that the petitioners used to receive the counterfeit stamps from Hemant Dubey but later on, cited him as a prosecution witness, who in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC has stated that he was a licensed stamp vendor and used to supply genuine stamps only to the petitioners. He has argued that as it is neither the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were involved in printing of counterfeit stamps nor any evidence has been brought on record to show that the petitioners used to procure stamps from any other source except Hemant Dubey, the question of dealing with or selling the counterfeit stamps by the petitioners does not arise and thus, the offences in question are not made out against them. He has contended that in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the petitioners, the trial court ought to have discharged them.
4. Per contra, the PP for the CBI has submitted that the impugned CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 6 of 12 order does not suffer from any infirmity and no interference is called for. She has argued that there is sufficient material on record against the petitioners and the trial court rightly framed charge for the offences in question against them.
5. Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences relating to coins and Government stamps. Sections 255 to 263A IPC in this chapter deal with offences relating to Government stamps. For the purpose of present case, the Court is concerned only with Sections 258 and 259. The said sections are in the following terms:
"258. Sale of counterfeit Government stamp.--Whoever sells, or offers for sale, any stamp which he knows or has reason to believe to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"259. Having possession of counterfeit Government stamp.-- Whoever has in his possession any stamp which he knows to be a counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, intending to use, or dispose of the same as a genuine stamp, or in order that it may be used as a genuine stamp, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
6. Besides the above sections, the trial court ordered for framing of charge against the petitioners under Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act read with Section 120B IPC. Section 69 of the Indian CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 7 of 12 Stamps Act provides thus:
"69. Penalty for breach of rule relating to sale of stamps and for unauthorized sale.--
(a) Any person appointed to sell stamps who disobeys any rule made under section 74; and
(b) any person not so appointed who sells or offers for sale any stamp other than a ten naye paise or five naye paise adhesive stamp;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
7. Before adverting to the material on record, it would be beneficial to refer to the landmark case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the principles to be borne in mind while dealing with the aspect of charge against an accused. It was observed thus :
"10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 8 of 12 depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
8. As mentioned earlier, the CBI has filed the charge sheet in the present case against accused Narender Singh (petitioner No. 1) and accused Prahlad (petitioner No. 2) primarily on the premise that they had sold 244 counterfeit foreign bill stamps of the denomination of Rs. 100/ each to M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries. The said stamps were seized by the initial IO Inspector Puran Singh from Sh. B. P. Shahi, Functional Head (Administration) of M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries vide seizure memo dated 19.01.2001. After transfer of investigation of the case to the CBI, the CBI had again recorded the statement of Sh. B. P. Shahi on 12.01.2004. In the said statement, Sh. B. P. Shahi affirmed that upon coming across a news item dated 05.01.2001 published in Times of India, he had produced 244 foreign bill CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 9 of 12 stamps purchased from M/s. Blue Star Services, which were available in their stock, before Inspector Puran Singh for inspection. He also identified his signatures on the backside of the stamp sheets, which were appended by him at the time of seizure thereof. In view of the above verification made by the CBI, there is no reason to disbelieve the said seizure even though the same had been made by Inspector Puran Singh. The samples of the seized stamps were sent to the Indian Security Press, which has opined that the same are counterfeit. Vide his letter dated 13.01.2004, Sh. B. P. Shahi informed the CBI that during the relevant period i.e. from February, 2000 to November, 2000, M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries had purchased the revenue stamps from M/s. Blue Star Services only and not from any other vendor. Sh. Abhay Kumar Jain, who was working as Assistant Manager (Finance) in M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries at the relevant time, also made a statement to the CBI that in the year 2000, M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries had purchased revenue stamps from accused Narender Singh, Proprietor of M/s. Blue Star Services only and the delivery thereof used to be made by his employee namely Prahlad. He further identified the signatures of accused Prahlad on the bills raised by M/s. Blue Star Services for supply of foreign bill stamps to M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries. CBI has produced on record the copy of the statement of Current Account No. 872 maintained by accused Narender Singh as the proprietor of M/s. Blue Star Services with Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi to show CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 10 of 12 that the cheques issued by M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries towards payment of the stamps purchased were credited in the said account. During the course of investigation, the CBI also seized the letter of proprietorship submitted by accused Narender Singh while opening the said account, wherein he had declared that he was trading in the name and style of M/s. Blue Star Services. In its report dated 31.12.2004, the CFSL has opined that the signatures appearing on the said letter and the account opening form tally with the specimen signatures of accused Narender Singh. It has also come on record that accused Prahlad had opened Current Account No. 1147 in Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi impersonating as Hemant Dubey. Considering the above, there is sufficient material on record that accused Narender Singh and Prahlad had criminally conspired for selling counterfeit Government revenue stamps and that in pursuance thereof, they had sold such stamps to M/s. Jamuna Auto Industries and thereby, the trial court rightly ordered for framing of charge under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 258 and 259 IPC. Failure of the investigating agency to bring on record the material to show the source from which accused Narender Singh and Prahlad used to procure the counterfeit stamps is of no consequence. Further, since the accused persons could not produce any document to show that the firm of accused Narender Singh had been appointed by the Government for selling the revenue stamps, the charge under Section 69 of the Indian Stamps Act is also CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 11 of 12 made out against them.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY GARG GARG Date: 2022.04.04 16:50:16 +0530 Announced in the open court (Sanjay Garg) Dated : 04.04.2022 Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 05/2022 Narender Singh & Anr. v. CBI Page No. 12 of 12