Irfan Ahmed @ Irfan vs State Of Karnataka Peenya P S on 5 March, 2010

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Irfan Ahmed @ Irfan vs State Of Karnataka Peenya P S on 5 March, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE 26"! DAY OF FEBRUARY 8153'" DAY OF  '>'2'.Q1O

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K N  _  

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos...663;'édV{§7'.'ﬁ; 
CRIMINAL APPEAL N'-95.1753/20(_)'7.  _ ~ 

In Crl.A No. 663/ 2007
BETWEEN :

1 IRFAN AHMED @"ERFAN  ;   
s/0 ZAHEERAHMED  i 
R/O NO. J6/_C, SAJJAI) BLIfILDINQ,"»'
CHAMUN'D;I,ANAGARMAI1\' R0'A1)_.,.i
RIF.      .
BANGALORE '32. %  I  

2 BADRUfQ}:)1N§V@ BALDRU 1
S/0. i;U'I'HUB'Up'DIN--.JAIvIEDAR
R'/.0     
NEW 41MAIK"(3ALL-I,' 
_BEHIND_ BAHAR GALLI,
,  KIIANAPUR, BELGAUM,

VAZIR AHMED SALIQ
__  A.@"'«MO.E£?§1\/EMED AMEED SALIQ @ SALIQ
"  S/O_"_A}3I§)UL RASHEED,
 R/.0 MADINA MANZIL
" M-USIQIM COLONY,
VESERASAGHARA EXTENSION
MELUKOTE ROAD,

 92' _'

F"  HSADASHIVA NAGAR, TUMKUR.

   PRADEEP KUMAR P G

S/() K.K.GOPIDAS
R/AT N023/1,



9

CHIKKARAMA REDDY BUILDING,

III MAIN, 15'? CROSS,

VIRATA RAGAR,

BOMMANAHALLI.

BANGALORE SS. 

 ARRELIANTS

[BY SR1. ANEES ALIKHAN. ADV. FOR

SR1. YOUNOUS ALIKIIAN & ASSOcLATES,'AEI?ST'  I-

I STATE OF KARNATAKA
PEENYA P S, BY CB1, _ ._   _ "
REP. BY SHR1 ASHOKHARNAHALI.-I *
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ' '
STADNING COUNSEL, "  

HIGH COURT OR~I:ARrI"ATARjA, 
HIGH COURT B[§'1LDIi\§.GE3; ;   'I
BANGALORE. I  2

 """     RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. i:>,G. FOR SRI, ASIIOR; HARANAHALLI ASSTS. ADVS. FOR CB1) _TH1S""CR1M.I:sIAL.AI43pEAL FILED U/8.374 CR.P.C. BY THE_;.AEv. FOR APPELLANTS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT I3T..._22;"-23,24/3.2007' PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDL. C.C. & .S;J 5: SRL..,SESSIONS JUDGE, {SPL. COURT) TO TRY FAKE CASES, B'LORE, IN S.C.No.893/O5 -

S"'CONVICTINGV.TI4IE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.I TO 4 FOR THE' OFFENCAES R/U/Ss.255, 256, 258, 259, 250. 420, 4,67. 468"; 4?} -TO 475 OF IPC R/W SEC.12()-B OF IPC AND U/S.1~?.O?;B OF IPC AND SENTENCING THEM TO UNDERGO _'R.I, FOR 5 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S5256, 259. * _ 260."-OF IPC R/W SEC.120~B OF IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF A . 'RS;*50,OO0/~ EACH FOR EACH OFFENCES I.D._. TO LENDERGO R1. FOR ONE YEAR AND FURTHER SENTENCiNG A ....THEM TO UNDERGO RI. FOR 10 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE 3 P/U/S.120--B OF {PC AND TO FAY FINE OF Rs.50,000/-- EACH 1.D., TO UNDERCO R.I. FOR ONE YEAR AND FURTHER SENTENCING THEM TO UNDERGO R.1. FOR 10 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCES F/U/ss.255, 457, 475_.OF IPC R/W SEC.120--B OF IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs.5D,'o00/~ EACH FOR EACH OFFENCE, 1.1)., T0 UNDEROOFOR ONE YEAR AND FURTHER SENTENCING _._'l"«C) UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 YEARS FOR THE OFF4ENCE"'?x/AUfS.A'~.é 471 OF IPC R/W SEC.120--B OF IPC AND OE RS.25,000/-- EACH FOR EACH OFEFNCOE I.fD., 'I"OUND_ERG.O E R1. FOR SIX MONTHS AND FUR':fI-IER sENTENCIN.OV_LT'HEM TO UNDERCO R.1. FOR 5 YEARS 'l'HE _OFI13F*NCE.S P/U/Ss.-420 OF {PC R/W SEC.1.'20--B 'OF 1PCftA.N'D' TO PAYa FINE OF Rs.50.000/-- EACH FOR EACH OFFEN~C'E.. TO.' UNDERGO R.I. FOR ONE FURTHER;-=sENTENC1NG THEM TO UNDEROO R.1. FOR _5_YEAR__s FOR OFFENCES P/U/Ss.258, 468, 472., AND 4?; OF. {PC R/Aw" SEC.120--B OF IPC AND TO PAY FFNE OF R;g.50';--oj0O';* EACH FOR EACH OFFENCE, LD. TO UNDERGO' R.I._..,_FO_R ONE YEAR. THE ABOVE SENTENCES sHAL1,j;RU-N_ CONDURENTLY. IN Cr1;A BETWEEN._:' A A A A ABDUL fFELOI'~@ V KAREEM LALASAB @ LALA " * _ s/O'M_a:F; LAD s ' "'"i'ELGI, , AOED ABOUF 41 YERS.

_ R./O NOv.56._/"E3§3,"--.. MINT ROAD, " .§:EN'1j1-i'sI BUILDING.

NEAR G_PO;l_ FORT, MUMEA1.

-A ...APPELLANT sR1." SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR A M T NANAIAH 8: SR1, UDAY K REDDY, ADVSJ 3"':

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POL1CE STATION NOW C.B.I., NEW DELHI.

{BY SR1. D.G. REGDE, ADVOCATE) F_OR--= SR1. ASROK HARANAHALLI Assrs, ADRS; ~FOR:.'C--BI} THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL"'rFILED'- U/S 3.7A«.._'CR..F~;:C BY? THE ADVOCATE FOR THE"'O-»APPELLANT"'F£';GAiNST THE JUDGEMNT DT.22/23/24.3.0'_7__.__ PASSED BY .1fHE,sFL.s.J & XXXV ADDL. CITY. *:::IV11.;' &. j' BANGALORE. IN S.C.NO.893/05 -- CONVIC'l'IN_G 2.f1HE--.AFFAELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCE-1P/U/ss.2.55-,».'256. 258, 259, 260, 4,20. 467, 468, 471 TO_4r?5. R/W. ~sEC._ 120'-B OF THE IPC & U/S.120--B OP 'EEC'... A-S A.N._.iND,EFEN,DENT OFFENCE. AND SENTENCIN4G:-_,vH1£i/E._.'l'OlUI{fDERTOV R.I;""FOR 5 YEARS FOR OFFENCES; P/AU/s'.'2.56;'--2-59..260-,OF' IPC R/W. SEC.120~B OF IPC & TO. PAY; FINE oA..ge...5'0,0ca0/« FOR EACH OFFENCE I.D., z1NDER{;O "=R'.-1. 1 YEAR. & FURTHER SENTENCINGRIM'TOv.IjN1)ERGO R.1. FOR 10 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE OF THE IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs_.50,o0r1_/A.1.D..':TO UNDERGO R.1. FOR 1 YEAR. 8: FURTHER SENTENCII\}'G HIM TO UNDERGO R1. FOR 10 ' :,.FORfrHE OFFENCES P/U-/Ss.255, 467 3: 475 OF IFC ,R;.'W. _sEC..12--0--B OF IPC <3: TO PAY FINE OF RS.50.000/-- _ FOR'EACH.O.FFENCE I.D., TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR. "EU-RTFI'ER~v...sEN'FENC1NG HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 _F'OR-"THE OFFENCE P/U/S471 OF IPC R/W. SEC--.12€3-BF OF IPC & TO PAY A FINE OF RS.25,000/~ FOR EACi-TOFFENCE, I.D., TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS. _T.'URTHER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 " _ FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S420 OF IPC R/W. SEC.

F F. -B OF IPC. AND TO PAY FINE OF Rs.50.000/-- FOR EACH OFFENCE I.D., TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR. AND ....FUR'I'HER SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 YEARS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss.258. 468, 472, 4:73. & {'1 A RESFOREERT 'R '* 2 5 474 OF IPC R/W. SEC.12()-B OF IPC AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/-- FOR EACH OFFENCE, 1.1)., T0 UNDEROO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR. THE AEOVE SENTENCE sH.AL_L_ RUN CONCURRENTLY. 1 THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING FOR .'I3'€I:<*IIe£'ER HEARING/DICTATION OF JUDGMENT ON _'.i'i'-{ESEvvC:'D.#§:i'S,l'v, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING; H J U D G,-V"-All-'1'.;.llli":"ivL1;' .: A These two appeals filed Spe.Ctio'11"

Cr.P.C. are directed agains"e:the judgmciit orderl dated 22nd, 23rd and limb O'f'llll\V_/I:Aa:;l"lcVl'I.'lvl'2{.)O7 passed by the 35th Additional City ciyﬁ Judge Bangalore, and Special toll-try*;Fske' $tELn1-p«i3aper Cases in S.C. N0.893/'l2O[lj5l9V.l '$7: 'V V 2].' to 4 in Criminal Appeal Noi,€_§63;'.2007"' Axzifefe Accused -~ 1 to 4 while the sole lilapplellguii; iixi-Criminal Appeal No.753/ 2007 was Accused tlighelllleamed Sessions Judge.

7- All these accused persons Were chargesheeted Police Inspector, Anti Corruption Branch, CB1, _ME§ar1galore, for offences punishable under Sections 255. /3 256, 258, 259, 260, 420, 467, 468, 471 to 475 r/W. Section 120-13 of I.P.C.

4) The case of the proseoutio;;',"".._:2is during investigation and trial is gas und.e1":_ '1' -- . V ' (1) During October 199'8,:"'M/s.A'Sa;ni_u ands' Extracts Limited (fOiVw"-¢:S'i'1'iQ_I»'t EVE/is'; Ltd.), Bangaiore, had ' V _ purchase certain immovable propertiesfsiti1a..t:edAA.'.:i.n__'Bangalore from M/ s. Tetronix totzai consideration of Crores Forty Two Lakh_s).\ii_:' ﬁayable on the sale deed

- Forty Two Lakhs Seventy _ F Ti'i1on.sands only].

(ii) _ . /'s. was making arrangements for " e§teC.ution"o'f-the sale deed by the vendor and for its registrati_on, Accused No.1--Irfan Ahmed @ Irfan, mjiaher Ahmed along with another, _ representing M/s. Cauvery Enterprises, "a}_51proached PW.1»G.V. Reddy, the Manager of it /s. SCE Ltd., and represented that M/s. Cauvery it Enterprises is an authorised ﬁrm deaiing with embossing of stamps and selling of stamp papers and offered their services for the embossing > Ltd.., should'. pay the procedure as they would get 2% commission from the Government for doing the same. Be1ieV?i_ﬁ*g the said representation as true, PW.1 decid.e4dV,'to:4"aVa.iI the services of M/s. Cauvery getting the sale deed embossed with"

Stamp Seal. During the d,iscussfioi1,..:iit"was:ag1=ee-d that M/ s. Cauvery Enterprises'».shouid. deposit,» a sum of Rs.42,75,OOE1,,:/3V--,in Reserve India ('R.B.I. for short} being.--tti'e._Vaiue of the sfarnp duty payable on the'*«sa}e 'deedo'n;h:e'h,a1f of M/s. sce Ltd. and the Manager, M/s. such deposit, the1jeafi_§ri1,,_ Enterprises to get the starnp.,,e's'ea1:,__em,bo,sse'd ..:or_1,§'the sale deed from the ;1Deputy'._--vVIﬁrectof'-.,._Qf _' Treasury, Stamp Depot, the sake deed is registered jtirisdictional Sub~Registrar, M/s. SCE said amount of to M/s. Cauvery Enterprises.

on 11.05.1999, as instructed by Accused No.1, PW.2--K. Venkatesh, the Assistant "Manager (Commercial) of M/s. SCE Ltd., Went to u R.B.I. with an instruction to watch the remittance of Rs.4~2,75,000/» in the R.B.I. by representatives of M/ s. Cauvery Enterprises on behalf of M/ s. SCE a Ltd. In the RBI, Accused No.1 introduced Accused No.2--Badruddin @ Badru and Accused No,'3~_Vazir Ahmed Saliq @ Moharnrned Ameed Saligp ,to PW.2. as the representatives of Enterprises. Thereafter, Accused" "opened a» , suit case which he was currency notes kept in th__e9"_s_zuit to Thereafter, as instructedp by9"'Accns9e~d A was waiting inside th_e_9:V'R,_B..I,n whi1--e_ :Acc_r51sed No.3 left the place got and deposit the money. After-9~sorn'e" vAcc1'.1sed No.3 came back tQ,.[?W,2 challan of R31, told__ p§s1,2ft,h,at ,.t_1;«'=,-or .am.,oui.;1t ¢r"VRs.42,75,ooo/- has been-.,de:.po_sited_.«.x'C5r1 PW.2 found that aithe the seal of the R.B.1., for amount. Thereafter, PW.2 _ went out of the R.B.I. and got 'vai'zeroXV'9copy___of the said challan as per Ex.P2. The c,_opy--Ex.P2 was handed over to PW.2. PW.2 to the Company and reported the same to ,th'er§/Ianager--PW.1 and aiso handed over Xerox , of the challan (Ex.P2) to him.

Thereafter, on 13/ 5/ 1999 PW.1 handed over the original sale deed to Accused-1 along with covering letter of the Company as per Ex.P3 addressed to Deputy Director of Treasuries, Stare/1p'___ Depot, Bangalore, for getting the stamp seal ernbosgsed on it. Thereafter, Accused--1 brought ,__se,le deed duly containing embossed endorsement by the Deputy Dyirectorvg'ofI.'i'reas'uries,l j A' Starnp Depot, Banga1ore,V'».shoW:i:t1g duty of Rs.42,75,oo_o/5. Thereafter,»":tne:4_VsaIe aaa, was duly executed bycjthe ven'd.or'r,on V21_4.V(")5.I999 and the saznezyyas registered_ in the-office of the Sub--Registrar, "-- .l§a.ngalorc "' gt ' l per Ex. P4. On 14.05.1999 itself,,Accu,5g¢a--'I"e:ais,ed a bill towards services' ':r=egn--der'ed theirnl':.and..V:accordingly, on the issued a cheque for Centurian Bank, a:Korarf1angala, }3ran.c_h, in favour of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises:'The.yicheque was delivered to Accused- 1 allofhlhg coyering letter --Ex.P6, which was duly aclfnoyyleclged by Accused--1. Subsequently, saga cheque got encashed by M/s. Cauvery a. through its Banker National Co-

'. operatitfe Bank, Koramangaia Branch, Bangalore and"the account of M/s. SCE Ltd., was debited ., the said amount of Rs.42,75,000/~«. _ After about three years, on 08.10.2002 M/s. SCE T Ltd., received a letter from the Central Crime

(vi) I 0 Branch, Bangalore, seeking certain particulars about the transactions the Company ha'd'.gWith M/s. Cauvery Enterprises. According}§f;....V"'on 21.10.2002 the Company furnished tire inforniations and also themcopies'"of--.the"'recordS';'.

which they had in that ijgonriiectiozfihg' growing suspicion, M/ s. Wr_ote'va"1ette'r R.B.I. on 10.01.2003 reqtiesting__ isstre of'c'e'rtiﬁcate' "regarding deposit of on H1V71.05.1999 towards Ir; Cresptonse, the Company received letter from R.B.I., *_~ cash was deposited Ei'1'iy._g_:(.5i*1_(i 0'n::f_11V.0'SV.1999, on behalf of Manager of M/s. SCE Ltd., ﬁ1ed.__4ccmf)1_ai1§.t"{.§X.P9) before the Peenya Police 'aileging' .. M/s. Cauvery Enterprises has

0. cheated therrrby receiving Rs.42,75,000/-- and not _ the same in the 12.8.1. towards stamp 2' dvtitjgﬁ have fabricated and forged the docutnents to make it appear that the amount of "as'.42,75,000/- has been deposited in the RBI. H Based on the said complaint, PW.32-- iisubbanna, Police Inspector of Peenya Police Station registered case in Crime No.44/2003 on 21.01.2003 for

(viii) V I1 offences punishable under Sections 404, 468, 471 and 420 r/W. 1208 of IPC and to.ok--up investigation.

During the investigation, PW.32, Centurian Bank, and National, 'Ccﬁ'§o19'eratiVeviEi;aI§k,VV' Korarnangala, Bangalore to" 9 ftirnish igof issuance of the cheque con1piainan_i;: anc_i'. encashment of the by °*M"/ Cauvery Enterprises. _1.ette0rs"'~to"V: Treasury Office, R.B.I., etc. requesting them to {regard to deposit of --=Ia11'd of the stamp seal on the of sale deed ete..

On 1.V3;"t;-zjt.9oo3.;:Pwe.32 received ietter from R.B.I. to the effectthaaaivié/s. SCE Ltd., did not deposit 0Re.4V2,7n'5;~o.o_Qg/r during May 1999. PW.32 also " ~ received letter from Deputy Director of Treasuries,

0. $tarVr.jt}oA'e3'VV'Depot, Bangalore, dated 24.04.2003, 2 .. sitating that no counter embossing Was got done by it the complainant from the said office for Rs.42,75,000/~.

-- a 9 Accused- 1 12 During investigation, it was revealed that, Accused No.4 opened Current A/C No 363 in National Co-- operative Bank Ltd., Koramanmgala Eiiilnch, Bangalore, describing himself as propriet_crVV'o-fl Cauvery Enterprises on 06.02.1999 '_ and deposited the cheque issued b;y"1vi /1255.; ,s'cr:.,ua.; ~ for Rs.42 ,'75,000/ - for co},levction,_' withdrew the amounts from'the..acCou.i1.t: on Vari"ous=, ' dates. It was aiso revealed'. No.3' opened Current A/CA,_No'."8_42_,_ in 'Syndicate Bank, Malieshwaramy on 16.01.1998, describing hiinseifas M/ s. Unique Service.s',':as'--per_ ,,gotf'cheques issued in favourof7--..l\ki_/9-'Qijniqreie'-«Services, as per E1348 'lateij withdrew the cash from the accounts, 9' "

V4;j"i'hereafte_r,' on 18.01.2004, PW.32 arrested subsequently his voluntary ,. staterii.ent was recorded, wherein. involvement of to 5 in the commission of the offences waselisciosed and on the basis of his statement, presence of Accused««2. who was in judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.1100/02 of Madivala Poiice Station and Accused No.3, who was in Judicial Custody in connection with Crime (Xi) 14 with this case as per M.O. I and the impressions of the seals were obtained on separate vsliedets as per Ex.P.32. On 04.02.2004, on being':'_'1ee'dS'by Accused»~»3 , PW.32 prepared pancha.ri'an1.a Ex.P33.

On 05.04.2004, as directed the of Police, Bangalore, otfe1*VwVf£1rthe1"V investigation of the case'and.,_vtherecordsfto PW.31-- M.V.s.s. Shastry, po1;¢e.,:xispecta. Ace, CB1, Bangalore. in}'e_stigation, PW.31 seized 'V ,.::seVer:_1i from different tnst:txitt:e1§te,§i,v_ muse-e;t on 16.08.2004 and after;»';eornp1_etirigthe intrestigation laid charge tsiieetr against Accused-- 1 to 3 and 1w_it*n:_of the Court continued the inxfestigvationkopf case against Accused 4 & 5. V. I,,")_uri.ng in"'es--tigation, Specimen signatures and wrttmgeor Accused--1 to 4 were obtained in the pre's,ertc;'e"'.of panchas. , Thereafter, EXs.P2 to P4, Adhesive Stamps, Stamp Papers, Specimen "Signatures and Writings of Accused I to 4, A impressions of seals etc. were sent for examination and comparision by handwriting expert and After Surya Prasad, submitted examiner of questioned documents.

examination, PW.34 (KW) 15 detaiied reports in this regard asper EX.P.i14. 116, 118, 1198: 123.

As Accused--5 was already in judicial custody in connection with some other case, his preser1ege.o.vv'as secured in this case by obtaining bodykvarrariti after completing the investigation." charge sheets were ﬁled againstr':.c'cusAed.}4~g_ f During investigatiorn Was. also t"Vr'eiéfeal.ed--w3 thattt' Accused--1 to 4 reﬁresenting. Cauvery Enterprises ._ riS'ervicesv;'A "had sold adhesive stamps it andraiso fakeyvitstamp papers to various _'organiZations '' '.Injd»'us Land Bank. as genuine stamps wéeiittiiat they were fake stamps and thereby counterfeited the Government V' 'vstamjjs-. and had 'cheated those organizations and it aiso'--- the V'Government. Thus, according to the prosecution, Accused--5 being the owner and 1 to 4 being the employees of M/s.

Cauvery Enterprises and Unique Services, by tthatching a criminal conspiracy committed acts of . -. ,. forgery' cheating. fabrication of documents, counterfeiting Government stamps etc. and have v l6 cheated the Complainant as Well as the State to the tune of several lakhs.

5) The learned Magistrate before sheet and supplementary chargesheets" . 1 cognizance of the offences alleged with all the legal forrnalitiesi'ijommitted_the to the' Court of Sessions. in th.;:_._._lruﬁe;anii(hiie',"as. thiie Special Court was constituted' paper cases, the case Court. The Speciai 14 charges on 'additilori'ai~'charges on 22.03.2007. Accused--1;_toV guilty for all these charges and clairriedto bring home the guilt of the accused person's' charges levelled against them, the prosecution'{' examined I-"'Ws.1 to 35 and got marked l£xa.,_P1VVto P138 and Mo. No.1.

7) During their examination urider Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating I7 circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. It was the Accused--1 to 4.» that they were all employees--- of Enterprises and Unique Services;~t~h.at have discharged their duties entr:ist'ed' to itheinngy had no knowledge that the..:,§1*ganiiationo_in the)'/"V were working was dealigng 'e"te.,~;';that they had no intention to "forgery. cheating etc, and that have§een°'fa1se'1yVj'iniplicated in the case. .iv'The:d5efeii§ce of *Accu'sed'--':5 was that he has no connec't_io"n_ 'whatsoeVe1=._gg"'either with M/s. Cauvery Enterprisiestior v:Uvnio;ue~.-'*'»Services and that he has not '~ ' co1ninitted.__any act-saileged.

-.-_VVg8}T'i»..._L'i'he'--:"Iearned Special Judge on assessment of oraland 'd-ocumentary evidence, by the Judgement under :_"'app_eai"}*ieId that the prosecution has proved the guilt of 'accu*sed~1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections it tiff ~255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 420, 467, 468, 471 to 475 r/w. {E y 18 Section 120-8 of I.P.C and also independently for offence under Section l20--B of I.P.C.. Consequently, the learned Special Judge convicted Accused-- I. to 5 for the. offences and sentenced them to undergo i.i13iprisoﬁmgen.ti--v, for various periods and also to payvﬁne for offences.' it ' Being aggrieved by the said order of sentence, the accused have 'presente'd 'these' appeals. V

9) I have heard" S171 Khan, learned counsei appearilri-g V' to Sri. Uday K. Reddyrg learned' Qoiunsei""appe_aring for Accused No.5 and Sri. I).GV.._p4'I<iegd.el, counsel appearing for the Res4poiident§C13_i."l V'Perused the voluminous record Viiseicnuredlvthe Court below, and the Judgement under "V Anees Ali Khan submitted as under:

hi it 4' ij" Accused--1 to 4 were mere employees of M / s. l' . ' 'Cauvery Enterprises and M/s. Unique Services. ._t_13.erefore, the alleged acts if any committed by them 19 were as per the instructions of their employer/s, as such, they had no knowledge or intention in doing such acts and the prosecution has not proved by cogent evidence the means rea or the guilty mind, therefore, the the Court below holding Accused-- l top"----4 various offences charged agajnstWthem,.*is'~pe;'verse_ and iilegal, as such, liable to be set asides' ; 1:) pw.13, 16, 1s,1s,§n;12owere,_aigé'««[employeesVV of the M/ s. Cauvery E;_nterprises~,along With,Acciised-- I to 4 and the evidence revealed that the acts committed by thern acts alleged against Accusedf *_-3. to]T4, lthley have been let-

off While 1" to:_4--...Were:.'chargesheeted, as such, the Ch_:largel_A1 _'---- 1 to 4 is biased one, and abso1utely= no ,lVVe.,€lpla'11atioi1 has been given by the prosecutilottlas to, 13, 16, 18, 19 8t 20 have _ beeri,.1et¥off A.ccused-- I to 4 are prosecuted. iii_)"~,"'F1*i'e.._evide1"1ce of witnesses do not prove the l'ofi"ence"punishable under Section 120-133 of IPC against Accused' 4, therefore, the other offences alleged do "-.not g'et__A'attracted and since Accused--l to 4 have been A '~?_"cAonvi,cted for other offences only on the ground that there

-- hwiasﬂa conspiracy among Accused~ I to 5 to commit the 20 acts alleged, the conviction recorded against Accused-- 1 to 4 is without any basis and is liable to be set aside.

iv) The overt--acts alleged against 1 only being that he procured order for supplyof' stamp papers to M/ s. SCE Ltd., and latenhe the cheque for Rs.42,7S,000/-- jfrorn«tg_h'e and delivered the same to oVert--acts are held to be proxged, 'it. does l'noti.'cionsltitutett' any offence, as Accused--1 in of M/s.

Cauvery Enterprises. and of 'assigned duty of procuring order for papers, he merely procured the orders cheque. The evidence prosecution does not prove that ltnoiirledge of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises or 'any.tsp-ersonconnected to it, indulging in counterfeiting starnp"p:a:pers or Government stamps or iI1dL§£1gi13'g in' ..v_:fVabric'ation of documents by forgery, "'*therefo*i*'e, the conyiction recorded against Accuwed--1 is _ perVers*esan'd.g_VW3':thout any basis. overt--acts alleged against Accused--4~ beingthatn he collected the cheque issued by M/s. SCE Ltd-...4,. for Rs.42,75,000/-- and on opening a Bank Account describing himself as "proprietor of iVI/ s. Cauvery _g_E§nterprises deposited the said cheque into that account e/ 2} and later withdrew the amount from the account even if held to be proved, it does not constitute any offeince_. as there is absolutely no evidence to prove had any knowledge that the cheque collected.' towards the value of counterfeited. ,embossed:'.st.a'm,p.seal"i of the treasury put on the sale:=.,1deedr{E2t'.'P?i-andl " tihatthe had the knowledge that no: amount was deeposvited RBI by M/ s. Cauvery Enterprises on /s. SCEV Ltd.. towards the stamp duty; Therefore.' 'tvhesiitonviction recorded against Acci1sede4--.is illegal.

vi) Even if the 'produced by the prosecution' 3-is correct, at best it could only §rren¢'¢s" under Sections 465. 467 and Accused-2 8: 3 and no other offences uchargegdld,' the judgment of the Court below is liable' to be set' aside.

__The "'co1;=_.rt' below has failed to notice that the .p1*i.ntin_g'.niater_ials and machines said to have been used A stamps have not been seized during the inv.e_stig.at.io4:1tland no investigation has been conducted tenor any';. evidence is collected to establish as to from "f=.v§rhe,::e the alleged stamp papers came from. In the absence of any material in this regard, the learned ..,_Sessions Judge has committed error in holding the 93 22 accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 255 to 260 of IPC. Remand of Accused--l to 4 to the police custody after the expiry of initial period"'--of 15 days from the date of their arrest is illegal investigation pursuant thereto is also illegal," 1-as reliance could have been placed onhthe sarn'e--.--i: 9

viii) There is no acceptable ev_idencle'_l't"ov est'ablVish..p that Accused--3 created challan--Ex'.'P2, 'other' hand Accused~»3 during hisp___e5:<a,1fr;;iij1ation«under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has a plausible and acceptable explanationtodieleffeef' was waiting outside the eouiiiter some time one Abdul Rah.eein__ b_r.oth_er.."ofV_Accused--5. handed over the challan he showed the same to PW.2. Therefore; in any investigation as to who created the ';cha.llanS--E;>iV.P2, there is no proof that Acct-i§sed>3 cre'ated____pE;x.P2, as such, the conviction of V:AA<:cused:}3.iis..ivllegal and is without any basis. 1'a1n::'support of his contentions. learned counsel has"soL:gh't"to place reliance on the following decisions:

AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1890 _ ii] -FAAIR 2001 Supreme Court 3074.

__i__ii) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1705 %E/, 23

12) Sri. Uday K. Reddy. learned H cﬁunsei appearing for Accused--5 urged as under:

1) Even from the Contents of the evidence produced by the nothing to do with either M/s.

M/s. Unique Services, since per"EX.P2'1~_Ac;cuse'd-4 is V the proprietor of M/s. Cauv_er-y_ Enterprises and as per Ex.P 48, Accused~3 the of Unique Services, as such, in iiglit5Vof--.:tiive;~V.éﬁéntents of these docurnents, theloral 16, 18,19 and 20 that thef,' of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises,' Vservices, cannot be acceptediiias in the absence of any other :''evidence that Accused--5 was the proprietor,{_owner,/'M/s. Cauvery Enterprises and M/,S%§' 'Unique">Services, the conviction recorded against AV""cA¢cuseia;5"i.,_wuhii'the aid of Section 120~B of IPC is _ p'e1fverse_andiiiegal.

A iii" ' only on the basis of the alleged voluntary V'~..staten1er3it of Accused--1 to 4, Accused--5 has been it irnpii_cated in the case though the aileged voiuntary

-- 'statement of Accusec1-1 to 4 has no evidentiary value or ~-legal sanctity, and that Accused--5 was implicated in the case and has been convicted only on the basis of media 24 report which are inadmissible in evidence, and since no incriminating article has been recovered from or at the instance of Accused-5, the prosecution has utterl_v"fai1ed to prove the complicity of Accused--5 for offences alleged, as such, he is entitled for acquittal.

13) On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent--(:Bi%, in"a<.:I,diti_on_: i the judgment of the court belo*»v"vJouuld urge'as..uEnder:--

i] Though thereis». no docu.Inen't'ary evidence to Show that A"c4ci'is'ed~5_ was the 'Boss of M/ s. Cauvery the oral evidence of PWs.13; '20 who were undisputedly employees, of these.VAtavo"---organizations clearly establishes that,Accused:5' 'Wash'-their boss and since their evidence .__1n V-tl'iis;_i'egard isﬂnotirnpeached in the ci*oss--examination, ' -.cot1rtn§)elow is justiiied in holding that Accused~5 was Cauvery Enterprises and M/ s. Unique SerLrice_s,' in that capacity Accused-5 along with the employees--Accused--I to 4 conspired to commit the acts vlvcheating, fabrication of documents, forgery, counterfeiting Government stamps and selling them as "-genuine knowing fully well that they are counterfeited starnps, as such, the learned Sessions Judge is justified 25 in convicting Accused--5 for offence punishable under Section 120-13 of IPC and also for the other offences committed in furtherance of such conspiracy. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the f

ii) The oral and documentary evident?

the prosecution before the Court be:14ot§J"'rea§d' dearly establishes that, in furtherance ¢f.j:he ' :-

conspiracy hatched by }'1ceuVsed§'i to "'i.._:Aceu'sed~ representing M/s. Cauvery____f:Ente.rprises.f_ procured the orders from M/s_ of embossed stamp papers of the -- and thereafter Accusedai made it appear to PW.2, SCE Ltd. that, amount off has been remitted to RBI by showing a'-forgedanfdfabricated bank chaiian and later Accused"1'--.._pde1iVeVred,_ff the sate deed--Ex.P4 containing cour:1:teri'eit ernb-o.sVs_epd. stamp seal of the Government as forged: seal and signature of the Deputy Director of Depot, Bangalore, to PW.1 and later the_fchevque€--_.collected from M/ s. SCE3 Ltd. towards the va}uue..ouftstVa1np duty by Accused--1 was got encashed by if by depositing the same in the Bank Account 'opened by him as Proprietor of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises National Co--operative Bank Ltd., Koramangaia Branch, Bangalore. Therefore, the prosecution has &/.

26 proved the guilt of the Accused~1 to 5 of the offences charged.

iii) Nothing is broughtout on record 1 to 4 to show that the other employees of Enterprises and M/ s. Unique Services we1*e__ui11volved in '' creating fake or fabricated Bank.' counterfeit Government Stamps 'etc.;;"tl1er'efore', A¢§ci;s~ed--

1 to 4 cannot plead that they.have"b_een

iv) All the stages in 'counterfeiting the Government Stanip~s_ constituteoffence of 'eounterfeit within the meaning of IPC, which is punishable Section' the failure on the part of Accused-

1 to 4 eorriingioutipl any kind of explanation in respgeetcppof certaiii acts. which are within their special tlieﬁearned Sessions Judge has rightly 'drawn"v€i€ivers'e.inference against them and that was an "addedVvcirfiurtnzsotance in proving the guilt of the accused. support of his contentions, the learned » counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions: 27

i) AIR 2004 SC 2282

ii) AIR 1980 SC 669

iii) AIR 1980 SC 439

iv) 2002 (1) SCC 73}

15) In the light of the submissions madei~.oin_.C_both sides and having regard to the facts and of the case, the points that arise, formy_''con'sideration'inf ' _ these appeals are:

i) Whether the learned S'essionsv-,_J't1V'Cige "is justified in hoidingfithat thefprosecution has provedthe guilt."ofﬁA.ccused:~--], to 4 for all the offences charge_d"«.gagainst them, beyond reasonable .

ii}W the" ~1e'arned Sessions Judge is justified gin' holding that Accused--5 was the Boss - of 'M/s. Cauvery Enterprises and M/s';-VU_n_igc;ue Services and in that capacity he hatched conspiracy with Accused--~ 1 to 4 "and_ in furtherance of such conspiracy, 'V "Afccused-1 to 5 have committed the offence A --_for.*' which they were charged '? 2' .iii}a:_ hvwhether the judgment of the Court below calls for interference by this Court '.9 If so, to what extent ?

28 16] As noticed earlier, in respect of this case, the criminal law was set on motion through the eognplaint lodged by PW.1 as per EX.P9. PW. 1--~G.V. Rodtdyiﬁzice President of M/s. SCE Ltd., in his evidence;--- 4% about lodging of the coniplainteasigperttiiixiiﬁtittt' contents. There is absolutely no7--eross¥e7§aminatio.n"to PW.1 in that regard. The :'wh~o'Vreg'istered' the case on the basis the.i'C'orfipiiant--E:~t.P'9 and took--up investigation, has also'snokeiii~:V:aho_dt:%.the said facts. There is no Cha11€I1gC':ﬁO'_'hiS:;"€ViCtéi1C€xii;i:_"1'1'iiE1f:'regard. Contents of Ex.P9'that""M§/s. SCE Ltd., agreed to purchase hearing No.19/1 and 19/2, Peenya IndL1stI'iai'v.Area"from its owner M / s. Tetrorulx India for consideration of Rs.3,42,00,000/-- hi'ee';..Crores Forty Two Lakhs only); that the re'qiiired duty for getting the sale deed registered Hwas Rs__.A?~i2,75,OOO/«~ (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand only}; that during the first week of V,...j.[»Ai)ril/May 1999, Accused-I, the employee of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises approached the M/ s. SCE Ltd., 29 introducing his Company as an authorised firm dealing in embossing of Government Stamp Seal and offe1*e_d;_their services for the embossing procedure represented that they will get 2°/M9» cornri'xissioi1'--.:fron1 Government for doing the thiereforei, ia_iAth 9' M/s. scs Ltd, decidedl is; avail thei'g"1S,ery;etesdl T91» embossing of sale deed they wi1l make payment only of all formalities such as cashgdeposit"einbovssinglhﬁandilgéegistration of the eaie deed;:__ /ellcauvery Enterprises deposited 'sf -- in RBI and a copy of the chaise :55; RBI was given to them; that on 'Ciauvery Enterprises got the sale ./V_dea%d'~e§nbo_ssed§"thaton the next day i.e., on 14.05.1999, "sale duly registered in the office of the Sub- Reglistrarllliﬁangalore North Taluk, Bangalore; that after the registration of the sale deed, M/ s. Cauvery Enterprises a bill for Rs.-42,75,000/-- and on 14.05.1999 itself _gv'tf1e said amount was paid by M/ s. SCE Ltd., in favour of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises by means of 'Account Payee' is 30 cheque drawn on Centurian Bank, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore, which was got encashd by M/s. Qauvery Enterprises; that on 08.10.2002 they received the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Branch, Bangalore, directing of 0, transaction with M/ s. Cativeryd "ll Enterprise's:"'«._. and accordingly they furnishedvth::e"~details.by.th'eir'~-lett'er dated' 21.10.2002; that thereafter,-"only!01-01.2003, they wrote a letter to the RBI requelstingl certiﬁcate with respect to dep9~sit:~ma{jle 1.1, that in reply they receivedi'lett.er.'dated '1.ﬁ2'003"'§from RBI stating that no such deposit' 1.05. 1999; that on receipt of suchletter-«frontthe,_SRBl, they came to know that M/s. Enterpri--s--es did not remit the amount of !Rs,_42,f'7v5V§O.O0./¢--..to the RBI on 11.05.1999 and the copy of furnished by M/s. Cauvery Enterprises lﬁto evidence remittance of Rs.42,75,000/-- was a fake and v":Vd_;fablri'cated document. Therefore, the complainant sought action against the culprits. PW.1 in his oral evidence has reiterated the facts stated in Ex.P9. PW.1 in his b.

31 evidence further stated that Accused No.1--Irfan along with PW.13~Anees Khan visited the Company and procured the orders for supply of the embossed stamp papers and agreed for all the conditions imposed by regarding deposit of money etc. He has on 11.05.1999, PW.2--K. v€,9.kat¢'bh.r,,, 'the, 3 Manager, Commercial Depart_ment= M/ sent to R131 to oversee the Rs.é'i'2,75,000/-- and accordingly, Accused--1 to 3 in RBI and after__ sorneywshowedt money contained siﬁt'-case---.hedld"by"him and after some time, Accused«~3:_shovvett9.ithefbankhchalian to I-"W2 stating that the rnoney"*«has b_een~-.re1nitted to the RBI and a xerox copy "V._of gsaidgchadllan--«Was detivered to PW.2, who in turn, Xerox copy to him [PW.1). He has also that on 13.05.1999, the sale deed prepared '*-.by thetiegal Advisor of the company was handed over to V."vt.Aee1;ised~1 along with the covering Eetter-Ex.P3 and on __the same day evening, Accusedd returned the sale deed containing embossed Government Stamp Seal and also 32 the signature of the Deputy Director of Treasuries, Stalnp Depot, Bangaiore, and on the next day, the sale deed was registered. PW.2- Venkatesh, in his evidence that he is the employee of M/s. SCE pp 11.05.1999, as directed by PW.v.i;" j he met Accused-1, who in turn to him as representatives of Caiiizergrepfiriterdijrises and thereafter, Accused~ s.howe=ci" than brief A case" containing currency notes and thereafter}Accused'-j_3 asked him to wait for him:.{r'4~'r3:)'1'and;'_ stating that he would and after some time Accused;~3:_ showed the bank chalian containin'g"'.the RBI for having remitted the of pRs.'42;v?5;000/M and thereafter a xerox of the over to him, which he delivered to PW. 1 in ovfﬁﬁce, .17).. V I have perused the cross--exa:a1ination of PWs.1 it "There is absoluteiy nothing to discredit their ' testimony in this regard. in fact Accused--1 during his 33 examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted that he along with PW.13-Anees Khan, visited M/s. SCE Ltd., and secured the orders. He has also "-that on 1 1.05.1999, PW.2 came to the RBI and.--he 4_ Accused~2 and 3 to PW.2. Acci1<s*ed+2 their ; it examination under Section u A' admitted their presence 1w1..().5; they» having been introduced to i§"v'\/'.-Z'bv"Accus'ed'~ it-in the RBI. However, Accused-3 dteniedtithei' PW.2 that he (A3) showed the'1-currencvjnotesjeontgziined in a suit case to sorne"time"'he'showed PW.2 the challan of RBI for having remitted the amount --. However, to Question No.145, under Section--313 of Cr.P.C, Accused:{.'3:.4ii.asgstated that by the time, he Went to RBI, Acr;_iised<I'ti:':&i::2 were already there: thereafter Accused~1 "i..,introduced him to one person in the RBI; that person, who introduced by Accusecl--I gave him (Accused--3) one thrown colour bag; he took that bag, went inside the office of RBI, where Rahim Teigi was sitting in LT. Counter of 35 the same as per Ex.P2 was handed over to PW.2. The evidence of officials of the RBI, examined as PWS. 10 8: 14 would clearly establish that on 11.05.1999, the ainotint of Rs.42,75,000/-- was not remitted to the RBI;"eirthVer_it5n_::the name of M/s. SCE Ltd., or in the Enterprises and that the chalian saidgg 9' of the RBI and the signature of" the offic'ia1A:

thereon is a forged and concocted .doc1,i'111.ent. 'l}'here is no serious challenge to thefevidence "ctfthesge witnesses in the cross--exainination. F:'.ro'1n:this,_'it 3s"_further clear that the

-9' has not been remitted to R131 on 111;eQ5';1999°éjr:a«§1 rritiieir :9:1aaﬁk Chalian showed to PW.2 regarding "rernittanCe_ of the amount was a forged and " '~ _ fabrieagted .docun1'er--~."

evidence of PW.i establishes that on sale deed drafted by the Legal Advisor of the "C.oVtnpany, was handed over to Accused--1 for the A '~:f'ntirpose of getting the Government stamp seal embossed evidencing the remittance of stamp duty of /3 36 Rs.42,'75,000/-- and on the saine day, it was returned to them by ACcused--1 duly Containing the _4e1n_fb_:os_sed Government stamp sea} and also the s__ignatu1'fje..T rubber stamp seal of the Deput_y....D_irector"of'.'iI5reas1iri'¢St," . E Stamp Depot, Bangalore. :"t_i'erjEisg_ examination of PW. 1, it isrriestkly that the saie deed was not reeeiitted AeouseC1:ii, he has denied the same. addressed to Deputy Director ..of 'Depot, Vidhana Soudha, it/[V/'ti. ::"S;CV_E3'H'VIV.td., informing that they ti'eied§ through M/ S. Cauvery Entertiristes duty of Rs.42,75,000/--. The _saidV't'}etter_ajsto_t' bears signature of Accused--1 for ha-iziiigijeoeived'th'e-----sale deed. During examination under

-_Cr.P.C., Aocused~1 denies this part of the eVidencVe.--'of '::PW.1. Reading of the entire cross- examination of PW.1 on behalf of Accused--~1 to 4 Vﬂgindifoates that there is not even a suggestion put to him __that Aocused--~1 did not receive the sale deed--~E3x.P4 for getting the Government stamp seal embossed along with 37 covering ietter--Ex.P3. The signature appearing on Ex.P3 as that of Accused~1 has not been denied in this-.ci'0ss~ examination of PW.1. PW.17--Cheppathu a Director of M / s. SCE Ltd., inhis evidenCiefvhasV'_stated' » _ that Accused»1 has signed per Accused--1 took Ex.P3 aiongwith the in the cross-«exarnination 'suggest'ed...to:§him that, signature of Accusdedfi on Ex.P3 subsequentiy the and that at the request of' Ex.P3 to the police and of Accused--1 on the SaII1(§t'~~'/ as per Ex.P3(b) is admitted. d"~HVowe'Ver;._ Accused--1 during his examination isiecition x3'1'3""of Cr.P.C. has not asserted that his »v4Wa:s":..subsequent1y obtained on Ex.P3 by the police, a speciﬁc question was put to him. as per Question No.72. The evidence of the handwriting expert establishes that the signature appearing on Ex. P3, .,,_x.§rhich is at Ex.P3(b) tallies with the specimen signature of Accused--1. By this, it is clear that Accused--1 took the av 38 sale deed from PW.l aiong with covering letter-Ex.P3 addressed to Deputy Director of Treasuries, Starnriglbepot, Bangalore, for getting the sale deed Government Stamp Seal. The unimpeaehableof , PW.l establishes that Accused:-=,_l bae1S{"th_e"es,ale S deed with the embossed stamp of the 1f;lave1'i1men.t* and also the signature as starhpﬁseal of the Deputy Director of Bangalore, as per Ex.P-4 Aecusedwl, however Cr.P.C., has not eome~0u~t~ llllany as to who got the embossed on E'.x.P4. In the light of the established» fact,llthatglxceusedw1 took the sale deed--Ex,.P4 v g .__the hGove-rriment Stamp Seal embossed thereon same in the evening of 13.05.1999 with Government Stamp Seal and also the l'l.,gsignat'uure as well as rubber Stamp seal of the Deputy "'lll'_Di1fee_tor of Treasuries, Stamp Depot, Bangalore, it was his personal knowledge as to who got the said seat embossed on Ex..P4.

39

19) As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2002(1) scc 731 1 GANESHLAL V.S S'1T.z5i'fl:fI~3._V or RAJASTHAN], it is the duty of the accused things within his personal knowledge and on part to c0me--0ut with any eXpla;natien;' Wiarraritsfirawiiig .

of adverse inference agair.-stin the'V:cas'e--..on.3hand.L' Accusedwl has not c0nie--out__yifitli any efiiplanation as to who all conspirerlllyinl-.thi.s:Vthough the same was well withinhis persona} it t

20)" .3evi.de--nce "o"n~~--r'fecord establishes that Accused-"1 to _.custody and their specimen signature's"--«.owere ob_tai~ried on different dates in the pr=3:s°en_ce .__of independent panch witnesses. It is behalf of Accused--1 to 4 that the remand of

1.Xcc'used:'1lli:toi:;4 to police custody after the expiry of initial periodyyloif 15 days is bad in law, as such, all further 7l_Ain_yeé'tigations are illegal, as such, no reliance could have _vv_l__3§een placed on any of the materials collected during such investigation. ' 40

21) As observed by the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in AIR 2004 SC 2282 [ STATE REP. BY INSPECIDR OF POLICE AND OTHERS VS. N.M.T. JOY A. the evidentiary value of the materials investigation in furtherance of rernand«--Vo-fy to police custody under an illegal order of ivoulddg not get affected and it cannoltlbe' exci1,icied'crtiere:ly on that ground and the evidenceT_xco1lected"vshouid be strictly examined in a_ccordan_ce=, '§fhe"*:Vprovisions of the Evidence _::{3oi_1r'ts_:_4' exclude relevant evidence 'the-.,._gr0und that it is obtained by illegal search Therefore, assuming for the purpo'se. of that the remand of Accused--1 to 4 to. ciistody after the expiry of initial period of 15 days. froﬁf;.._ti'i;e"'date of arrest was bad in law, merely on that the investigation done subsequent thereto an.~,.1_the evidence collected thereon cannot be rejected.

"'i:he'llevidentiary value of such materials will have to be wstrictiy considered in accordance with law. Therefore, 41 the said contention has no substance and is accordingly rejected.

22) As noticed above, the evidence prodii:'ce_d-_'ny the prosecution clearly establishes investigation, the specimen signatures of were obtained. It is the speciﬁczcasehof that their signatures and were 'on Enany' V occasions even when _theyc.iwcr:_e- int_Centra1. ?rison and when they were in po1ice.e_cus-trﬁdy. __Therefore, from this, it is clear that..19\¢iC'tES€(ie disputed thenfact that ﬁtheirxit's}:eciinen,_d'sigriatures and writings were obtained.._p'The evideiice--.ofJPW.34-Y.Surya Prasad, who is the'; eipert. clearly establishes that he pexainined irarrious documents produced and compared thereon with the specimen handwriting signatiires of Accused--1 to 4 and has furnished his opinion'; The opinion of the handwriting expert has been axargai at Exs.114, 118, 118, 119 and 123. From the "evidence of PW.34, it is clearly established that Accused-

M .

42 2 has forged the signature of Deputy Director of Treasuries, Stamp Depot, Bangalore, on Ex.P4g;'"---._The evidence of PW.34 also further establishes..'4"Etiat"V;~ the handwriting on Ex.P2-Chaiian of R81 datgatigiritgrgos.isssg' is of AeCused--2. The evidence of furnished by him further eistablishest. vfthatig handwriting found on to Wiifith the specimen of ACeused--2.

23) The__ eviden,c:e':.,V PW,f'if:5,gi>tashanth R.K, Deputy Dir¢§ﬁ,'i;ti?§Vf and PW.15~K.K. Srinivvasa ti1:e"'it'iss.istant Treasury Officer of the Stamp fD_e:'pot,' clearly establishes that the emhgossed found on sale deed --Ex.P4 was not office of the Deputy Director of Treasuries, Bangalore and that there are no eorfesponding entries in the registers [Ex.P.50) for having deposited the stamp duty of Rs.4~2,'75,000/-- and the fhsigfnature found on EXP4 as that of Deputy Director of if hfffreasuries, Stamp Depot, Bangaiore is a forged signature 43 and not the signature of Deputy Director of Treasuries, Stamp Depot, Bangalore and the rubber stamp s.eai..,of.._DY Director of Treasuries, Stamp Deposit, in Ex.P4 is a fabricated seal.

evidence placed by the prosecntioriz clearly_ established that the embosseVd=..s_eals'ofthe of. D' Karnataka found on the sig11a.ture as aiso rubber seal of Deputy'.,Di1'ec't§)r reasuries, Stamp Depot, all fabricated, "forged and Further, from the evident,-'e"'i'oi;TFWf3:--Renu.1§apr'as--aVd. Sub--Registrar, it is clear on _.of Ex.P4 for registration on 14.05. 1999, the was registered and he did not the authenticity of stamp embossed ..a:s-the signature and rubber seal of Deputy Director'.oi'3--.V."i"'i"easu1'ies, Stamp Depot, found on the sale it 24} As discussed above, the evidence on record it miciearly establishes that Accused--1 to 4, as the e/ 45 on 14.05.1999 itself and thereafter, the said cheque was deposited by Accused--4 in a Bank Account which he got opened in National Cowoperative Bank Koramangala Branch, Bangalore, by as the proprietor of M/ s. CauVery..Ent.erprises the amount covered under the said credited to the said accountyrepened.__byv,g§'ecuseq;4 and"

subsequentiy, Accused;4 wit1'1d--re':v the said"am'ount from the account by issuing' In fact.

Accused--1 innhis Section--3 13 of Cr.P.C~.""'t:ategoriiiai1y'"-tadniitted"that he coilected the cheque; issued infavour of M/s.pca1iv'e:y'iEriterp;%1se'§ by M/s. SCE Ltd.. Accused» his eiianiiiiation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he opened the Bank Account 'the name of M /s. Cauvery Enterprises 9'-..describi_r11g him to be its proprietor and thereafter, V"'V'._dep.o.sited the said cheque issued by M/s. SCE Ltd., for _y_R§s.42,75,000/w in favour of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises \.

k 46 and got the amount collected and subsequently Withdrawn.

25) From the evidence piaced on recoryc-l';.._bit is clearly established that the Bank Chaiian --E;§',.I§2hand.V'the embossed stamp seal. signature as weil as__V'the..Vrubber"

seal of the Deputy Director of Treasurie«s, Bangalore found on Ex.P4 are "e1: fe::;;7:eatearsi"'eﬁa..o counterfeited one and thes'ee.:acts hatf_e"* done by Accused--1 to 4 in conspiracy hatched by them with a View to and also the _'Ltd.. Act of Conspiracy is always 'carried' as such seldom there wili be direct evidence'inV'proof of the same. Therefore, it has from the facts and circumstance of the attending events. If the acts committed byfeach' of'":Accused-1 to 4 are considered as a whole, ﬂthere isfno difficulty in inferring that, they have done these acts in furtherence of a conspiracy hatched by 4 47 them. But for the Conspiracy Accused--1 to 4, the acts could not have been accompiished.

26) Thus, it is satisfactoriiy established'--~i5y_:"'the prosecution that Accused--}. to 4 in conspiracy hatched by them acting VhyfthHe--irV ' act of forgery. counterfeiting Fabrication of documents act. V defc-:eit;,g4'Vcoliectedd Rs.4,'75,000/-- from M./_s. SC'E"i;td;§tr.on the"'prerI1ise that they have remitted theslaid on behalf of M/s. SCE Ltd'.',««g,.tdo-wards, the payable on the sale <:ieed--i.E1§§'_i}?v4;,.,V_though-they had not deposited the said amountand, 'cheated both the Government and also; 'M/s. scL{Ltd.,.d' As perﬂseetion 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, ~:_ '*;vher'e:"therev.i's reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence'"or an actionabie wrong, anything said, done or "'writ'ten by any one of such persons in reference to their it "isornmon intention, after the time when such intention @.

48 was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to _be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of pro'jv'ing.'_S'~the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose---- of gdshoivjfr-zg that any such person was a party to-.ifg. H S 28] Interpreting Section SHIVNARAYANA LAXBHNARA':.V:V"i.YA1iIA AND' orrmns Vs. STATE {AIR'4199o so

439) has held that the pi?i1icjip1e in Section 10 of the EvidenCA'?':g.e:Act:=.t the conspiracy to commit anitiiierfalvt'«act.,:is.v,__pro_ved, act of one conspirator becomes actv.of:'ti1e" No doubt, Accused--1 to 4 haye'cor1tended"that they are merely employees of the Enterprises and M/s. Unique Services and in"S.t1jiat' they merely discharged their duties and V -t that tfiey"had no knowledge of the fact that the M/s. it Cauvery Enterprises or M/s. Unique Services were tindiilging in any acts of counterfeit, forgery, fabrication 49 etc., and therefore, they cannot be held guilty of any such acts.

29} According to the evidence placed on record by the prosecution may be that Accused~1 to 44,we-r'e._V_the employees of M / s. Cauvery Enterprises Services. However, on that ground, it CaI1"r10ttht1t" . Accused--1 to 4 had no knowledge that' have indulged in such activities. The overt'--a_cts,.,preved.l' against Accused--1 to do notllindieate th'at,,Ac_(5used--1 to 4 have committed thesetlactls:,_oriIy'4asfnfiere employees and that ihhgi knowledge of the fact that the organi.zat.io:1s are such criminal and illegal activities. VAcc1;1sed?l procured the orders from the later collected the sale deed and returned counterfeited embossed Government Stamp V-Séalfland also forged signature and rubber seal of Deputy Director of Treasuries, Stamp Depot, Baiagalore and thereafter collected the cheque for T '"Rs.42,75,000/~ from the complainant; Accused--3 showed M 50 a suit case containing currency notes to PW.2 and went inside the RBI on 11.05.1999 in the company of Accused--1 & 2 and thereafter, pretended that to remit the same to the RBI and after some*t--irne"

forged bank ehallan to PW2 statingthatthe:fnoney_ been remitted to the RBI, tho;tagh:'_'_9in'9V fact,"

knowledge money had not-been deposited.:. V":..,Aceu"sed-3'? has not come--out with..anyg,.racceptab_Ie eiipianation as to who deposited the tt'Vfabrieated the forged bank examination under.rvSection.' t"ried"%to explain that on that day, Telgi, brother of Accused--5 that the has been done and accordingly 'informed PW.2 about the same, no put to PW.2 during the cross-

exaininationin this regard, as such, the explanation on the of Accused--3 cannot be accepted. Thereafter. opened a Bank Account in National Co-

hgvoperative Bank Limited, Koramangala Branch, Bangaiore, describing himself as Proprietor of M/s. S1 Cauvery Enterprises and deposited the cheque for Rs.42,75,ooo/-- issued by M/s. see Ltd., and'.Coi1ected the money. The evidence of the established that Accused--2 wash __the_I"auth0r'::of_ signature purported to be of' Treasuries, Stamp Depot, B'ang,aiore','~ also writings on "cou1dV,i§not have been done unless :}4'4 a common intention to 'V therefore, the established' there was a conspi1'acy. to 4 to commit acts of cheating," and counterfeiting of Governrnednt etc. it ' n 30). 'There is no substance in the contention of the iearneei for Accused~«1 to 4 that many other ernp1oyees'of M / s. Cauvery Enterprises and M / s. Unique 2 Seryices, who were similarly piaced and examined as 13, 16, 18, 19, 20 have been 1et--off whiie oniy they (Accused--1 to 4) have been chosen for being prosecuted 52 and thereby there is an act of discrimination. The evidence on record do not in any way establish that any one of PWs.13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 being the em;p1.:;y_ees of either M/s. Cauvery Enterprises or Services have committed any acts», anvyu' offence. Therefore, Acci1sed-- 1 4._A_a're these witnesses, as such-,.r__"t.1f1ere"'is 'no'~.:qu'estion of discrimination metedjout to :..'Acc'a1sed--i"-to./E4. The evidence led by the prohseciition -establishes that Accused--1 to, 'conspiracy hatched by themi"hav:e5cheated' some other organizations iike Indus1"'.Bank', Bank, etc., by selling counterfeit'--«shtampvs they knew fully well that they = _ areﬂiot .genuine"stamp papers.

also the case of the prosecution that after having Withdrawn the amounts from their 'respective bank accounts, have paid the same to V"i:V'_P;cciti_sed»5. However, except their say during hpvpeicaxnination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., absolutely no kw"

evidence worthy of acceptance is produced to establish that Accused~3 & 4 have at any point of time pa_idp_:m:onies withdrawn by them from their bank Accused~5. Therefore, their say cannot be

32) No doubt, during machines said to have beeniélused Ahf-Otfg eounter_feiti1'1g the' stamps have been seized. on"'thaty..'§ground it cannot be said that not guilty of the offence of cou:.1terfeiting' Seal. The fact that the Stamp Seal found at Ex.P4g is not'._--va__v3gennine_ one and is a fake one, is satisfactorily lestablished' by cogent and acceptable evidence. 'l'he_rVefore', non--seizure of any materials or yrnachines .4 "used for counterfeiting the Government a ground to hold the person who has corri'n1itted' such act, as not guilty.

it * 33) Section 28 of IPC defines terrn 'counterfeit'. 'According to this deﬁnition, a person is said to it Wieounterfeit' who causes one thing to resemble another M, 54 thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.

34) The act of 'counterfeit' as deﬁned i_n.Vl_Sect_ion Q 28 is punishable under Section 255 of section, whoever counterfeits or.;knowingly"'pe1_'forms. of the process of counterfeitingfg the Government for the pur'pose be' punished with imprisonrnentv--_ 'for or with imprisonment of either d.escrip»tion"£orVVa» term which may extend shall also be liable to ﬁne.

Thus, per a person who is involved in peijﬁorriiance "of_V_any part of the process of counterfeiting. it is. also guilty of committing counterfeit. ._ 'il:nV..their evidence, PWS. 1 and 2 have no doubt that they had no reason to disbelieve or it doubt the embossing stamp seal found on EX.P4 as it Balpipeared to be genuine one. Even the Sub-Registrar, it "before whom the sale deed was presented for registration, 55 could not doubt the genuineness of the embossed stamp seal found on Ex.P-4. However, it is established that the embossed stamp seal found on EXP4 is not the affixed by the Deputy Director of Treas_uiriesf;V*. Depot, Bangalore. Thus, frorn»rr»~this Accused--l to 4 have counterfeite_'d"'f the _A"Gove1*nrneent Stamp Seal and made it ._resen1b'l:e""With they genuine with an intentiontto practise edeceptiien. It is Well--settled law that need not in all aspects one. What is required thing is counterfeited one man it appeared to be genuine been deceived.

learned Sessions Judge after an elaborate "disc_*ussion__ofthe oral and documentary evidence, has rightly that the prosecution has proved that Aocusedel to 4 in furtherance of conspiracy hatched by to cheat the Government as Well as the "complainant M/s. SCE Ltd, forged the bank challan to S 56 make it appear that it had deposited Rs.42,75,0{)0/-- on 11.05.1999 and subsequently courlterfeited.ijgthe Government Stamp Seal on the sale _ the signature and fabricated the rubber of the" = Deputy Director of Treasuries, .?;)epotA.,.' Bai'igalo.eje, to make it appear that tl1:e'~..sale2'dee:l liasA..gjbC.¢§1 embossed with Stamp collected the money from the of the Court below holding of the charges levelled against fault with. To get satisﬁed..,,th'isH 9" to the evidence of material the contents of undisputed documents-«..,e InVtl:_eACon.s'idered opinion of this Court, the ibielow hasv------as-'signed proper and cogent reasons while :'hoid'in:g"-..Accused--1 to 4 guilty of the offences charged .ag§f;u'nst them. There are no reasons to interfere V with said judgment.

A 37) The next question required to be considered is V was to whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in g 57 holding Accused--5 guilty of the offences based on the ﬁnding that Accused-5 as the Boss of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises and M/s. Unique Services was aiso.:"on'e of the conspirator. It is the specific case of the that Accused--5 was the proprietor,/own'er/Bossllof_'_:M Cauvery Enterprises and M/ s. Uniqtilellservices arid«.i.t"lis as per his instructions, it 1__ 'to: the» employees, have committed~variotis__acts'."-Thtls, it was the alleged fact of owner/Boss of M/s. CauvervEnterprises:',or-._M;fjs.u Unique Services was the basis pi+osecn.t'ion"Vlto rope in Accused-5. Therefore) lit' isfor.lVti1e'i'r;iro.secution to place cogent and acceptable"*'..evidence-,_: prove that Accused-5 had "V.._Acon__nection witlrrthese two organizations. It is fairly learned counsel for the respondent that except evidence of PWS. 13, 16, 18, I9 and 20, there"is__no documentary evidence to prove the connection l"'ll.'Abvetvveen Accused--5 and these two organizations. No PWs. 13, 16, 18, 19 and 20 in their evidence before the Court below have stated that Accused--~5 was 2/ 58 their Boss. However, reading the evidence of these witnesses as a whole indicates that at no point,_ofrti2rne they had seen Accused--5 acting as the organizations. It is only their ora1b_ say.'ti1at:'_Acci,1sAed}5"~ was their Boss. it is not their say that :Acici.1sed--'SVis.sﬂ:e_d any Appointment Order"i__to_ ﬂgayg instructions to them, OnVAp_t.he'v:.other the evidence of PW4 Rtﬁranch Manager, National Co--operative::'I3anit¥ AR. Shailaj a. Deputy Bank as also the cor1te'11ts: opening form establishes that fjtirrent Account No.363 in National Co?operatiV<e Bank Ltd, Korarnangala Branch, onh'O'6--.--{)2'.1999, describing him as Proprietor Enterprises. In fact, Accused--4 during his.4:'V%exa:nination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. admits havingopened a Bank Account in National Co--operative Ltd, Koraniangala Branch. Bangalore. on 6/2/99 ___describing hirnseif as Proprietor of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises. Of course, he quaiiﬁes the said admission E. 59 stating that as per the instructions of Sri. Rahim Telgi, he opened the said Bank Account as Proprietor of M/s. Cauvery Enterprises. However, such explanation does not find place during the cross--e:x:amination of ai'iyf"oSf""the witnesses. In the absence of any acceptabfpe:"rnatVe'ria1..h'on1'; record to indicate that Accused§4.4"'opent%4d --'.Bairku' Account as instructed by Sri. accepted that Aceused--4 Vonpfhis oivn. said' account describing himself Proprietor of M Cauvery Enterprises. Similarly. of PWs.11 and 28 andEX.,P<1S--;;aceou.ri't._Vope1iing§form, it is revealed that AccusVed--34'Ci1rren't.__'Account No.8-42 in Syndicate Bank, Branch, Bangalore, on 16.01.1998 desc'ribing.,y'hims'e' Proprietor of M/s. Unique Services. iiexamination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the question put in this regard at Question No.9"/* the effect that, on 16.01.1998 Current A/c. V'_Ai\J.o.8'42 was opened by him in the Syndicate Bank as the iéroprietor of M/s. Unique Services and he signed the appfication for opening the account which is at Ex.P48, 60 he has answered that the statement as correct. From this it is clear that Accused~3 8: 4 have _4deis.cribed themselves as Proprietors of M/s. Unique M/s. Cauvery Enterprises respectively, and 1999 itself. Absolutely no coming from Accused--3 as"to"'~under-Whatd'cViret1'm.stances. ' he opened the Ban}; Accourit._ describingiy himself as Proprietor of M / s. A.

38) Ac¢o:d1n;g"tb eﬁricijeriieg er «ri§*i§f.8--p.M.Keshava, one Vinodi-Gupta...*.vas =o_wn_er_'of__ ﬂat No. S414, in 4*"

Fioor of Centre, Bangalore, and the said flat' was Unique Services as per iease deed' datedu A Zerox copy of iease deed is A'E;x.P29. PW.1€3--Vinodh Gupta is none other under Ex.P29. He has stated that he granted: 'lease of the ﬂat to M /'s. Unique Services represented by Accused~»3. The cheque issued by

-t :'A.:ccu'sed--3 for Rs.90,000/~ in favour of PWJ6 towards .""Iien Months rent has been marked as EX,P.46 wherein 61 aiso Aecused--3 has discribed himself as the Proprietor of M/s. Unique Services. In Ex.P29, the Lessee M/ s. unique Services is represented by its Proprietor,«jiw'Ir';W'azir Ahmad Salik, who is none other than Thus, even from the the' prosecution, Accused--3 was Unique Services. T T» A A L

39) From th@ :'35..5id6171'c*e'Vq:.?5,¥i 'f'(?~C,0I'c'1,ﬂii:-iswclear that Accused-3 8: 4 are the aforesaid organizations,..f;: In "contents of these docunientarytvt'._-'evidence'andj the oral evidence of the ofﬁcersdofdthe' 'resp'ecti've4'hanks, where Accused-3 <3: 4 opei;ied.,their"' Accounts describing themselves as yd Proprietors of these organizations, the oral assertion of PW*,5g 19 and 20 that, 'they later came to know Accused-5 was their Boss', cannot be accepted, as their evidence in this regard is contrary to _ 'tithe 'contents of the very documentary evidence produced it "thy the prosecution. Apart from the oral assertion of PWs. 62

13, 16. 18, 19 and 20, absolutely there is no other material to establish the connection between Accu__sed--5 on the one hand and M/s. Cauvery Enterprisesfétpj'-.c:and M/s. Unique Services on the other hand. absolutely no evidence on recordﬁm to p_th_e d any point of time Accused--5 had'. given to any of the accused / 1 to "carry 'o.1_1t in the transaction relating to 'deposit_oi':i:staInp to the tune of Rs.42.75.000/~ and gauig seal embossed on the saie d_3ed'',fErX.P;1. ::

40) _ find a person guilty of any offence it pmereiyl 'siirmises, conjectures and asstirnptions."»The' reports which appeared in print and might have created an impression that __'the kingpin of Fake Stamp Paper Scandal.

I-ioiévever, stich impressions or inferences drawn from the n'1cd_ia reports cannot act as a basis for finding Accused--5

-- of the offence unless it is established satisfactorily it "that he had any connection with these organizations. In 63 this case, the offences alleged are in relation to the acts committed by Accused-- I to 4 representing M/spy. Enterprises and M/s. Unique Services. established by cogent and acceptable"llevidencei' Accused--5 has anything to do v.Jith'_"ti'iese._oI'ganiz:aii.on_s, it cannot be said that Accu'sed~:.5 conspireqi~Wa,gh..,Accuseqt V ' l to 4 in Committing the _lH1,-Ioxlvever, the prosecution has not and acceptable evidence to owner/ Boss of M/ s. Unique Services.

The 'l'3,~ 18, 19 and 20 that, contrary to the contents of documentazv 'evidenc_e'pfoduced by the prosecution itself '~ in of féarvik-«Account opening form duly filled and l,4Ac:c'Lised--3 & 4. These documents positively prove thatlt:lSccused«5 is not the oWner/ Boss of these two l*.,organiza'tions. Contents of these documents completely the case of the prosecution against Accused--5. 64

41) In the judgment under appeal the learned Sessions Judge has held that Acc1.ised--5 was in constant touch with Accused-I to 4 through telephone between 11.04.1999 to 15.05.1999, during which;'p*e1fio.d:,l17 the transaction involved in this case as peroceurrle'-lo and that Accused--5 has explanation as to what.»o'was the' therefore, Accused--5_is a regard, the iearned Sessions __reliance on the evidence of PW;.22--S11i3'ra.niatiya._llilfxf official of the BSNL.1a1'id.1ith;e év:aeri§'ei..l¢f 'pwiisli-M.v.s.s. Shastry, the Police:'*_ Inspectoi-i,!lrivestigating Officer, c131, ACB, Bangalore "and of EX.P'76 and EX.Pl38. No "V..,_do1;1l:t,;>_.acQ_ordiAngta1PW.31-- M.v.s.s. Shastry the Police Iiispectof; during investigation, he sent requisition for furnishing details of Telephone Nos. " ti-O22--2822632, 022-2594499, 0222852828 and V"iV'_AA02'2Hf{';269zi747, and pursuant to such request, MTNL, sent _'v_létter as per Ex.138 enclosing three sheets and as per this information, Telephone No.2252828 stood in the 65 name of Abdul Kareem Telgi {Accused No.5} and the same was installed on 11.02.1997 and was recovered without intimation for non~payrnent of the dues on The evidence of PW.22 would indicate that ' of the CBI, he furnished the:~-required theu' holders of the Telephone per Ex.P76 along with the details of.Vth.e Jlniaoo' from' and 'to' , the ,s'aid Telephone"rE§Iu1nl3e'rs.""itFrom the evidence of PW.22 it A' Telephone No.5599839 §wa.sVL:V1i'egi:.stere:cl iiiﬁthie of Vinod Gupta iVlani;aaj"-Center, No.47, Dickinson Road,:"'~BangaJooreV1--r.inccoifding to PW22, Vinod Gupta, applied foIn.telenhon.e 'connection on 04.10.1989 and it was;'in1_stal.led o'n"v2-4107,1995 and was dis--connected on According to PWI22, one R. Ansar was the holder Qf'th.c::Telephone No.3337367 and it was installed on 19.0%}. 1993 and that was shifted to N0484/38, 80 Ft. H.M.'l'. Layout, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore and the .»v'_Sfame was disconnected on 02.06.1999. Of course, it is in the evidence on record that Accused--3 8: 4 were /1 aa 67 were some calls originated from the telephone situated in the residence of Accused-3 & 4 to the Telephonefvvhich stood in the name of Accused-5, one canno:t't1old:M_ Accnsed«~5 is a conspirator for the con'1'n1ission=. the offence. The learned Sessions J.udge,.-c'in'ic»my 'op'inion';::Vei's not justified in coming to sulchponclusion on thebasis off this evidence.

42) Under I am of the considered the':'1earned..::Sessions Judge is not right has proved the of the acts. As could be seen froncrthel the Court below, Accused-5 has ; been co';1victedV' for the aforesaid offences on the is a conspirator being the Boss/ Owner of Enterprises and M / s. Unique Services. it is notthe case of the prosecution that Accused--5 had personaliy indulged in any of the said acts. In view of the that the evidence on record do not satisfactorily it "establish that Accused-5 was one of the conspirators by r.

68 virtue of Section--1O of the Indian Evidence Act, the acts of Accused--1 to 4 would not bind him. In the absence of any such evidence, the Court beiow is not ju.stified in convicting Accused--5 for any of the against him. Therefore, the judgment of the '_'oe1o_w" » _ insofar as Accused--5 is concefnecijis 1i'a,bie' to 'set aside. However, I find no g'roundA"to interfe'i:e""with the' judgment of the Court belowtco-uvicting"Ac.cused--1 to 4 for the offences for t_)eeii.charged. I aiso find no groun:'d.._ the sentence of iII1}I)I'iS{)1'i'11";'x'.1C:.1At'Ij'5*...t':i;1t':;;Ci-- ﬁne.' by the Court below "various offences for which they been guiity. Welbestabiished poIicy"is--«'that the persons found guilty of the be punished adequately taking into the nature of the offence and its effect on tﬁthe society, so that it should have a deterent effect on t":tt_Apote§3tial wrong doers. The acts for which Accused--1 to have been found guilty, constitutes offences committed against the Society and they have caused loss not only 69 to the exchequer but also to a private individual nameiy, the complainant. They had indulged in serious acts of counterfeiting Government Stamps and also fabricating the documents to make it appear that they had Vrerpnitted huge and substantial money to the Accused«~1 to 4 do not deserve kind" = the hands of the Court.

43) Under these .cir_cuInstances.a"'the_ le_}_1rned"t. Sessions Judge is justified in"s,entencirigV:Accnsed~1 to 4 for each of the offencesifoif "thgey"h»ave been charged separ;1te1y_an'd di3recti.ngV them to pay fine. There is no ground"t.ored1:c_eV e:~:hier.t1~ie sentence of imprisonment or the gsenctence'-»of'f1ne.V' However, it is necessary to clarify that the substantive sentence of imprisonment ordered against' to 4 shall run concurrently.

" Accordingly, Criminal Appeai No.663/2007 is dismissed. T he judgment and order convicting Accused- hi 4 and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for various periods and to pay fine is conﬁrmed. However, it 70 is made clear that the substantial sentence of imprisonment ordered against each of these accused shall run concurrently.

Criminal Appeal No. 753/2007 filed by Accfa.se.d~5 is allowed. The judgment of conviction sentence passed by the Court be1ew._agai_'r.1Vst'V' ' hereby set aside. Accused No.d',;Vis..'_'acqaittvedtaojt charges levelled against Acct1sedfV5., his in' custody, is ordered to-be released i'n_connec'tionh with this case, if he is not required_'in'ar.riy" ot_hae1*=case. .- ' "

K-raw' V

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Irfan Ahmed @ Irfan vs State Of Karnataka Peenya P S on 5 March, 2010