Delhi District Court
Additional Sessions ... vs V. C. Shukla Air 1980 Sc 1382 It on 3 February, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SMT. BIMLA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(NORTH):DELHI
S.C. No.75/22.04.09
State
Vs
(1)Kunwar Pal Singh,
S/o Sh. Narpat Singh
R/o Village & P.O Loharli,
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, P.S Dadri
(2)Kunwar Pal Sharma
S/o Sh. Satya Pal
R/O H. No.505, Devi Pura1,
Bulandsahar (UP)
(3)Rajender Bharti
S/o Sh. Ramesh Bharti
R/o Village Imlikhera, Dharampur,
Distt. Haridwar, Uttrakhand
(4)Surender Partap Singh @ Munna Bhai
S/o Sh. Vishal Singh
R/o Flat No. 43, G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi
(5)Dinesh Singh
S/o Raj Bhadur Singh
R/o Village & P.O Gari Ramgarh,
Distt. Etawah (UP)
(6)Hem Lata @ Dolly (died)
W/o Surender Partap Singh
R/o Flat No.43, G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi
FIR NO: 75/03
PS: Special Cell
U/S 120B, 255/258/259 IPC
Arguments heard: 25.01.2010
Judgment announced: 03.02.2010
2
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 18.09.03 at about 4.00 PM SI Lalit Joshi received a secret information that one Kunwar Pal Singh, resident of Meerut sold the counterfeit stamp papers at half rate on Monday and Thursday at Shyam Lal College in between 6.00 PM to 7.00 P.M. It was further informed that he (Kunwar Pal Singh)would deal with a person, if he told his name as 'Raja'. The information was entered in Rojnamcha by SI Lalit Joshi vide DD No. 16. He informed the ACP, who directed him to proceed with the matter. Thereafter, SI Lalit Joshi arranged a raiding party consisting of SI Umesh Kumar, SI Dinesh Kumar, HC Hira Lal and Constable Adesh Kumar. The raiding party proceeded towards Shahdara in a private car alongwith secret informer and reached near Shyam Lal College at about 5.35 PM. 23 persons were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed to join the same. SI Dinesh Kumar was deputed as decoy customer. In the meantime, the secret informer pointed out one person, who was crossing the road. He was having one polythene bag in his hand. The person stopped at about 20/22 paces from the gate of Shyam Lal College. The 3 decoy customer SI Dinesh was sent with the instructions that he would disclose his name as Raja and would give the signal by tying the laces of his shoes. SI Dinesh reached there and started talking to accused Kunwar Pal Singh. He (Kunwar Pal Singh)showed some stamp papers to decoy customer, which were kept in the polythene bag. The decoy customer checked the documents and handed over the same to Kunwar Pal Singh, who kept the same in the polythene bag. Thereafter, they started talking . Thereafter the decoy customer SI Dinesh gave the signal by tying the laces of shoes. Upon receiving the signal, the raiding party came into motion. The accused was apprehended by SI Dinesh and Ct. Adesh. The polythene bag, which the accused Kunwar Pal Singh was carrying, was searched out and 12 stamps papers of Rs.5000/ each and 10 stamp papers of Rs.1000/ each were found. Thereafter, accused Kunwar Pal Singh was interrogated, who told that some more stamp papers were kept in an Indica car near the house of Kunwar Pal Sharma at Kanti Nagar. SI Lalit Joshi prepared the Rukka and sent constable for registration of the case. The stamp papers were taken into possession and sealed with the seal of LJ. Seal after use was handed over to SI Umesh Kumar. In the 4 meanwhile SI Inderpal Singh reached the spot, who prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Lalit and recorded his statement. Further investigation of the case was handed over to Si Inderpal. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Kunwar Pal Singh accused Kunwar Pal Sharma was caught at Kanti Nagar. From his possession seven stamp papers of Rs.5000/ each and 15 stamp papers of Rs. 1000/ each were recovered. On the intervening night of 21/22.9.03 accused Rajender Bharti was also apprehended on the basis of secret information. From his formal search one counterfeit stamp paper of Rs.5000/ and three counterfeit stamp papers of Rs. 1000/ each were recovered.
2 Charge was framed by Ld. Predecessor on 27.09.04 against accused Kunwar Pal Singh in respect of offences U/S 120B IPC and Section 258 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. A separate charge was also framed against accused Rajender Bharti in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC and Section 258 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. A separate charge was also framed against accused Kunwar Pal Sharma @ Tunda in respect of offences U/S 120B IPC and Section 258 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. A separate charge was also framed against accused Surender 5 Pratap Singh in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC and Section 255 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. A separate charge was also framed against accused Hemlata in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC. A separate charge was framed against accused Dinesh in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC.
All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed trial.
3 During the pendency of case, accused Hemlata @ Dolly had died and proceedings against her were dropped on 21.12.04. 4 To prove its case prosecution has examined 23 witnesses. They are Anil Kumar Tomar(PW1), SH. Baldhari Singh (PW2), Ct. Deepak Sharma(PW3), HC Heera Lal (PW4), SI Durga Prasad(PW5), SI Dinesh Kumar (PW6), SI Umesh Sharma(PW7), Sh. Pawan Kumar (PW8), ASI Paramjeet Singh(PW9), Ct. Adesh Kumar (PW10), SI Maninder Singh(PW11), SI Lalit Joshi(PW12), Sh. Dig Vinay Singh, Ld. M. M. Rohini(PW13), HC Ravinder Pal(PW14), HC Parmod Kumar (PW15), HC SUrender Kumar(PW16), Sh. Brijesh Kumar(PW17), SI Raghubir Singh(PW18), Bhawar Singh(PW19), SI Ram Avtar(PW20), Sh. N. K. Sanyal(PW21), Sh. Anand Kumar Singh(PW22), SI Inderpal Singh 6 (PW23).
5 Statements of accused have been recorded, wherein accused Kunwar Pal Singh has stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case.
6 Accused Kunwar Pal Sharma has also stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case on false disclosure statement of coaccused Kunwar Pal Singh 7 Accused Rajender Bharti has stated that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case on the disclosure statement of coaccused.
8 Accused Surender Partap Singh has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 9 Accused Dinesh Singh has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on the false disclosure statements of coaccused Surenter Pratap Sigh and his wife Hemlata. 10 Accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 11 I have heard the arguments from ld. counsel for accused and Ld. Addl. P.P for State I have perused the case file. 7 12 In the present case, all the accused have been separately charged in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC, with the allegations that on 18.09.03 they entered into criminal conspiracy with each other for counterfeiting and sale of Govt. Stamps 13 Section 120B is reproduced here for ready reference.:
"Whoever, is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence."
14 The term 'Criminal conspiracy' has been defined under Section 120A of Indian Penal Code which is reproduced here for ready reference:
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1)an illegal act, or (2)an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
In State (Delhi Admn.) V. V. C. Shukla AIR 1980 SC 1382 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to prove a criminal conspiracy which is punishable under Section 120B there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. This clearly envisages that there must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the 8 commission of an offence. It is true that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
15 In the present case, none of the PWs examined by the prosecution has deposed that there was meeting of mind of the accused persons to do the illegal act i.e to counterfeit and sell the Govt. Stamp Papers. Prosecution has not proved on record any agreement between the accused to do said illegal act. None of the PWs examined by the prosecution has deposed that there was transmission of thoughts between the accused sharing the unlawful design. In the absence of direct or inferential evidence to prove the alleged agreement between the accused, I am of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused in respect of offence U/S 120B IPC. Accordingly, all the accused are acquitted of the offence U/S 120B IPC.
16 In the present case accused Kunwar Pal Singh, Kanwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti have been separately charged in respect of offence U/S 258 read with Section 120B IPC.
917 Section 258 is reproduced here for ready reference:
Whoever sells, or offers for sale any stamp which he knows or has reason to believe to be counterfeit of any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
18 Out of the 23 witnesses, PW6 SI Dinesh Kumar is the star witness being the decoy customer. This witness has deposed that on 18.09.03 SI Lalit Joshi received an information at 4.00 PM that one person, namely Kunwar Pal Singh, who deals in counterfeit stamp papers and is a resident of Meerut, would come near Shyam Lal College in between 6 to 7 PM, for sale of counterfeit stamp papers. The secret informer also told that if any bogus customer was sent in the name of Raja, he would sell the counterfeit stamp papers to him. This information was told by SI Lalit Joshi to ACP and was recorded in the daily diary register. A raiding party was arranged including him (PW6), SI Umesh Kumar, SI Lalit Joshi, HC Heera Lal and Ct. Adesh. They left the special cell at about 4.00 PM alongwith the secret informer in a private maruti Zen car and reached in front of Shyam Lal college at 5.35 PM. SI Lalit Joshi asked two three public persons to join raiding party but none agreed showing their inability. After 10 10/12 minutes the secret informer pointed towards one person, who was coming from opposite direction by submitting that he was Kunwar Pal Singh. PW6 has identified the accused Kunwar Pal Singh in court. He (PW6) has deposed that he was deputed as a decoy customer by SI Lalit Joshi. He was in plain clothes. SI Lalit Joshi directed him to tie the laces of the shoes after the deal was over with the accused. He reached near the accused and told his name as Raja and talked with the accused about the purchase of stamp papers of Rs.1 lakh. Accused told him that he had stamp papers of the value of Rs.70,000/ . Accused told him that the remaining stamp papers of Rs.30,000/ would be arranged shortly as his accomplish was standing at other place in a car with the stamp papers. The accused demanded half value of the stamp papers of the whole price of the stamp papers. He (PW6) negotiated to reduce the value but the accused refused by saying that the stamp papers were of better quality. Thereafter, he (PW6) gave signal to the members of the raiding party by tying the laces of his shoes. Accused Kunwar Pal Singh was apprehended by SI Umesh and Ct. Adesh. Accused told that his accomplish was having counterfeit stamp papers of Rs.30,000/ and was sitting in a car at Kanti 11 Nagar. SI Lalit Joshi seized the stamp papers and sealed the same with the seal of LJ. PW6 has identified the stamp papers Ex. PW4/A1 to 10 being the same recovered from the possession of Kanwar Pal Singh. 19 In crossexamination, PW6 has deposed that there were 5 Police officials and secret informer was also with them. SI Lalit Joshi had briefed them before they left the office of special cell. SI Lalit Joshi was driving the car. When the informer gave the signal, all the members of raiding party were out of the car and were standing at their position as directed by SI Lalit Joshi.
20 Another material witness is PW4. He has deposed on the same lines as that of PW6. He has further deposed that the stamp papers recovered from accused Kunwar Pal Singh were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A. Accused Kunwar Pal Singh was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded by SI Inderpal Singh. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Kunwar Pal Singh they reached at Kanti Nagar. On the pointing out of Kunwar Pal Singh one Indica car was found parked in the gali. In that car the driver of the car namely, Anil was sitting on the driving seat while accused Kunwar Pal Sharma was sitting in the car 12 present in court. On the pointing out of accused Kunwar Pal Singh, accused Kunwar Pal Sharma was arrested. He was having polythene in his right hand. On checking the polythene seven fake stamp papers of Rs.5000/ each and 15 fake stamp papers of Rs.1000/ each were recovered from the same. The stamp papers were sealed with the seal of IPS and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. Accused Kunwar Pal Sharma was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. The driver of car namely, Anil was also interrogated. Since the car was on hire, the driver of the car was let off by the IO. PW4 has identified the stamp papers Ex.PW4/A1 to A10 and Ex.PW4/B1 to B12 being recovered from accused Kunwar Pal Singh. He has further identified the stamp papers Ex.PW4/A11 to A25 and B13 to B19 as recovered from accused Kunwar Pal Sharma.
21 In crossexamination by ld. counsel for accused Kunwar Pal Sharma, PW4 has deposed that they left the office in maruti zen car of white colour. It was being driven by SI Lalit Joshi. All the police officials were not in uniform. They were six persons including the secret informer. Accused Kunwar Pal Singh was apprehended while sitting in the car No. 13 DL3CU3509 make Indica of cherry colour. The writing work was done by SI Lalit Joshi at Shyam Lal College in respect of accused Kunwar Pal Singh. The writing in respect of accused Kunwar Pal Sharma was done by SI Inderpal Singh. IO made inquiry from the driver Anil in his presence. PW4 has identified both the accused Kunwar Pal Singh and Kunwar Pal Sharma in court. It is worth noting that there is nothing in cross examination of PW4 which can dislodge evidence in examinationinchief. 22 Another material witness is PW7 SI Umesh Sharma. He has corroborated the testimony of PW4 & PW6 by deposing on the same lines. This witness has also identified the case property recovered from accused Kunwar Pal Singh and Kunwar Pal Sharma. This witness has been cross examined by ld. counsel for accused but nothing has come on record which could shake his testimony.
23 In the present case, prosecution has also examined the driver of the Indica car, which was hired by accused Kunwar Pal Singh from 'Heena Motors'. PW1 Anil Kumar has fully supported the prosecution story about the recovery of stamp papers from the possession of accused Kunwar Pal Sharma. His statement Ex.PW1/D U/S 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by PW13 14 Sh. Dig Vinay SIngh, Ld. M. M., wherein also he(PW1) supported the prosecution story. In the testimony of PW1 there is a small contradiction regarding the time of reaching at Kanti Nagar. In his testimony he has deposed that they reached at Kanti Nagar at 5/5.50 PM but in his statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C he has deposed the time as 3.30 PM. I am of the considered view that this contradiction is not material one and thus, not fatal to the prosecution case. So far as, the question of not identifying the case property by PW1 is concerned, I am of the considered view that the same has been sufficiently explained by him by deposing that it was night time when the stamp papers were recovered from Kunwar Pal Sharma. He has also deposed that the papers which are shown to him in the court are like those, which were recovered from accused.
24 Besides this, prosecution has examined the owner of 'Heena Motors' as PW2. He ( PW2) has clearly deposed that on 18.9.2003 a taxi (make Indica) No. DL3CU3509 was hired by accused Kunwar Pal Singh, present in court, which was driven by Anil Kumar. He gave a slip to the driver of his firm, which is Ex.P1.
25 Moreover, Prosecution has also produced the owner of Indica 15 car. He is PW8 Pawan Kumar. He has deposed that he is the registered owner of Indica car No. DL3CU3509. He had given the car to Baldhari Singh Choudhary, proprietor of 'Heena Motors', Jagriti Vihar, Garh Road, Meerut to earn money by letting the car on hire .
26 Another material witness to prove the recovery of stamp papers from accused Kunwar Pal Singh is SI Lalit Joshi (PW12). He has entered the secret information in Rojnamcha vide DD No. 16, which is Ex.PW12/A. He made the departure entry in the Rojnamcha Register vide Ex.PW12/B. He prepared the Rukka Ex.PW12/C and sent constable Adesh Kumar for registration of the case. At his instance, IO SI Inderpal prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/D. This witness has identified the accused Kunwar Pal Singh in court alongwith the stamp papers recovered from the possession of accused Kunwar Pal Singh.
27 Another material witness to prove the recovery of stamp papers from accused Rajender Bharti is PW11 SI Maninder Singh. He has deposed that on 21.9.03 he joined the investigation of the present case with SI Inder Pal SIngh and HC Ravinder. On that day, he visited Rurki, in connection with the investigation, where they received a secret information, 16 on the basis of which they returned to Delhi. On the intervening night of 21/22.9.03 they laid a trap at Gali No.5, Kanti Nagar. Secret niformer was with them. At about 11.25 PM accused Rajender Bharti, present in court was seen coming in the gali. The secret informer pointed out towards him. He (accused Rajender Bharti) was holding white colour polythene packet in his right hand. On the pointing out of secret informer, he was immediately apprehended and polythene was checked and was found containing one counterfeit stamp paper of Rs.5000/ and three counterfeit stamp papers of Rs.1000/ each. All the stamp papers were sealed into a parcel with the seal of MS and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. Seal after use was handed over to HC Ravinder. The disclosure statement of accused Rajender Bharti Ex.PW11/B was recorded. In crossexamination by Ld. counsel for accused Rajender Bharti PW11 denied that no stamp papers were recovered in his presence. He denied that accused Rajender Bharti was arrested by the IO from Rurki.
28 The testimony of PW11 is supported with the testimony of PW14 HC Ravinder, who had joined the investigation of this case with IO SI Inderpal Singh and SI Maninder Singh. He has deposed on the same 17 lines as those of PW1. PW14 has identified the accused Rajender Bharti in court.
29 The testimonies of PW11 & 14 are further corroborated with the testimony of PW23 Inderpal Singh, who has deposed on the lines of PW11 & 14. He has also identified the accused Rajender Bharti in court. He has further identified the case property Ex.PW11/1 to Ex.PW11/3 and Ex.PW11/4 to be the same, as was recovered from accused Rajender Bharti.
30 In view of the lucid and reliable testimony of PWs, discussed above, I am of the considered view that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of stamp papers from the possession of accused, Kunwar Pal Singh, Kunwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti. 31 In Joti Prasad V. State of Haryana, 1995(2)JIC 1527(SC):
1992(6)JT(SC) 94, it was held that where the counterfeit courtfee stamps were recovered from the possession of the accused, the accused barely alleged that he purchased all the stamps from the treasury, but no evidence including the records of the treasury were produced to the said defence, it was inferred that the accused had "knowledge" or had "reason to believe" that the stamps were counterfeited.
It was further held that "Knowledge" is an awareness on the part of the persons concerned indicating his state of mind, 18 "Reason to believe" is another facet of the state of mind. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as "suspicion" or "doubt" and mere being also cannot be equated to believing "reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. Likewise "knowledge" will be slightly on higher place than "reasons to believe". A person can be supposed to know where there is a direct appeal to his senses and a person is presumed to have reason to believe if he has sufficient cause to believe the same. These two requirements i.e "Knowledge" and "reason to believe" have to be deduced from various circumstances in the case. In the context of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, namely, that the appellant admittedly was a licensed stamp vendor and he was found in possession of counterfeit stamps, the explanation of the accused also becomes relevant and important in assessing and appreciating whether he had such knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeited. Admittedly he used to purchase stamps from the treasury and all such transactions are duly recorded in the official registers. There is absolutely no material whatsoever to show that the counterfeit stamps were in fact purchased by him from the treasury. A bare allegation by way of an explanation by the accusedappellant that he purchased all the stamps including the counterfeit ones from the treasury appears on the face of it to be false, as he has neither produced registers maintained by him nor did he make even an effort to summon the treasury records. There is no material whatsoever even to probablise such a plea. In these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that he had "knowledge" and "reason to believe" that the stamps which he had in his possession and which he was selling or offering to sell, were counterfeit ones.
It was further held that on recovery of counterfeit stamps from a licensed stamp vendor if he does not produce registers maintained by him or does not summon the treasury records to show the purchase of those stamps from the treasury, the only inference that can be drawn is that he had knowledge and reason to believe that those stamps were counterfeit ones.19
32 In the present case prosecution has examined PW17 Brijesh Kumar to prove the record regarding issuance of stamp vendor licence to accused Rajender Bharti. As per the testimony of PW17, the licence number of the accused Rajender Bharti is 97/97 dated 2.6.97. This witness has produced the record pertaining the licence of accused Rajender Bharti, which is Ex.PW17/A to Ex.PW17/K. Thus, from the testimony of PW17 it is clear that accused Rajender Bharti was a licenced stamp vendor.
33 Prosecution has also examined PW18 Si Raghubir Singh, who has collected the record pertaining to the licence of accused Kunwar Pal Sharma. He has deposed that on 25.2.04 he went to the office of ADM (F/R), District Gautam Budh Nagar (UP) and met the concerned clerk dealing with the licence of stamp vendors. On checking the record, the dealing assistant/clerk told that the licence pertaining to Kunwar Pal Shamra was issued by ADM(F/R) on 17.08.200 and was valid upto 31.3.05. The record pertaining to the accused Kunwar Pal Sharma is Ex.PW18/A. 34 PW18 has further deposed that on 3.3.04 he went to the office 20 of ADM (Finance), Haridwar and met the dealing clerk of stamp vendors. As per the information obtained from the dealing clerk the licence No. 97/97 dated 2.6.97 of Rajender Bharti was valid upto 31.3.05. 35 From the testimonies of PW17 & PW18 it becomes clear that accused Rajender Bharti and Kunwar Pal Sharma were licenced vendor and their licences were valid upto 31.3.05.
36 In the present case, accused Kunwar Pal Singh, Kunwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti did not examine any witness in their defence to show that they purchased the stamp papers from the treasury. They did not summon the records from Treasury. In the absence of any evidence on record, it can be safely inferred that all the three accused had 'knowledge' and 'reason to believe' that the stamp papers, which they had in their possession were counterfeit 37 It is worth noting that, prosecution has examined PW21 Sh. N. K. Sanyal from Security Press, Nasik to prove that the stamp papers possessed by accused Kunwal Pal Sharma , Kunwar Pal Singh and Rajender Bharti were forged. PW21 has deposed that vide letter No. 2059/50/DCP/Special Cell (SB) dated 24.10.03, 28 nonjudicial stamp 21 papers of Rs.1000 denomination and 20 nonjudicial stamp papers of Rs.5000/ were received for examination at India Security Press Nasik in case FIR No. 75/03, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The said 48 nonjudicial stamp papers were examined by Sh. Manish Shankar, Deputy Works Manager, India Security Press, Nasik and on examination the said 48 nonjudicial stamp papers were found to be forged. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Manish Shankar at point A on the report Ex.PW21/A. He has further deposed that the nonjudicial stamp papers Ex.PW4/A1 to 10, Ex.PW4/A11 to A25, Ex.PW4/B1 to 12 and Ex.PW4/B13 to B19 are bearing the signatures & seal of Sh. Manish Shankar at point A on each stamp paper. He has identified the signatures of Sh. Manish Shankar as he is subordinate to him. He has further deposed that he has been authorised by the General Manager, India Security Press vide authority letter Ex.PW23/B to depose in court in place of Sh. Manish Shankar. In crossexamination by Ld. counsel for accused PW21 has denied that he has wrongly identified the signatures of Sh. Manish Shankar. He has further denied that findings given on report Ex.PW21/B are not based on scientific reasons.
2238 In the present case, on 01.11.03 PW3 constable Deepak Sharma took three sealed parcels from MHC(M) and handed over the same to SI Dinesh Kumar in the office. The envelope were sealed with the seal of LJ, IPS and MS. He has deposed that so long as the parcels remained in his custody the seal was not tempered with. On the same day i.e on 1.11.03 all the three sealed parcels of stamp papers, which were handed over by PW3, were taken by PW6 SI Dinesh Kumar and deposited by him in India Security Press Nasik on 8.11.2003 alongwith the priority letter of DCP Special Cell. It is worth noting that the stamp papers sealed with the seal of 'LJ' are recovered from accused Kunwar Pal Singh, the stamp papers sealed with the seal of 'IPS' are recovered from the possession of accused Kunwar Pal Sharma and the stamp papers sealed with the seal of 'MS' are recovered from the possession of accused Rajender Bharti.
39 In view of the testimony of PWs examined by the prosecution and the documents on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Kunwar Pal Singh in respect of offence U/S 258 IPC and against 23 Kunwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti in respect of offence U/S 259 IPC. Since the offence U/S 258 IPC relates to sale or offer for sale implying possession and offence U/S 259 IPC relates to possession, I am of the considered view that on a charge U/S 258 IPC accused can be convicted of offence U/S 259 IPC.
40 In the present case, accused Surender Partap Singh has been charged with the commission of offence U/S 255 IPC with the allegations that he counterfeited the stamp papers which were recovered from co accused Kunwar Pal Singh, Kunwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti. 41 Section 255 IPC is reproduced here for ready reference: Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 42 In the present case to prove the offence against accused Surender Partap Singh prosecution has examined PW16 HC Surender Kumar. He has deposed that on 5.12.03 accused Surender Pratap Singh was arrested in case FIR No.481/03, PS Sarai Rohilla by SI Ram Avtar. On 6.12.03 he (PW16) alongwith SI Ram Avtar, HC Parmod Kumar went to 24 House No.583/12, Mandoli Extension. On the pointing out of accused Surender Pratap Singh computer, scanner, printing machine, forged stamp papers, forged revenue stamps and , forged education certificate etc. were recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/G & Ex.PW7/H. The original memos i.e Ex.PW7/G & Ex.PW7/H are lying in the file of case FIR No.481/03.
43 Prosecution has also examined SI Ram Avtar as PW20, who has deposed that on 5.12.03, he arrested Surender Pratap Singh in FIR No. 481/03 PS Sarai Rohilla. His disclosure statement was recorded, pursuant to which fake stamps paper, computer and blank papers, used for making fake stamp papers, were recovered from H. No. 583, Mandoli Extn. All the articles were seized by him in FIR No. 481/03. 44 It is worth noting that no case property has been recovered from accused Surender Pratap Singh in the present case. He has been arrested in this case by PW23 SI Inder Pal Singh on 12.1.04 when he (accused Surender Partap Singh) was in JC in case FIR No. 481/03 PS Sarai Rohilla. It is worth noting that accused Surender Pratap Singh was also charged in respect of offence U/S 255 IPC in case FIR No.481/03 PS 25 Sarai Rohilla and he has already been acquitted in respect of offence U/S 255 IPC in that case vide my separate judgment announced on 30.01.10. 45 In view of above facts, prosecution has miserbaly failed to prove its case U/S 255 IPC against accused Surender Partap Singh. Accordingly, accused Surender Pratap Singh is acquitted of the offence U/S 255 IPC.
46 To conclude, accused Kunwar Pal Singh, Kunwar Pal Sharma, Rajender Bharti, Surender Pratap Singh and Dinesh Singh are acquitted of the offence U/S 120B IPC.
47 Accused Kunwar Pal Singh is convicted in respect of offence U/S 258 IPC. Accused Kunwar Pal Sharma and Rajender Bharti are convicted of the offence U/S 259 IPC.
48 Accused Surender Pratap Singh is acquitted of the offence U/S 255 IPC.
Announced in open court on 03.02.2010 (Smt. Bimla Kumari) Addl. Sessions Judge (North):Delhi