Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Muntiyaz, on 21 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN, LD. ADDL.SESSIONS
JUDGE03, SE: NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 187/10
State Vs 1. Muntiyaz,
S/o Shri Shabir Ali,
R/o Gali no. 9,
Village Jagatpur, Delhi
2. Rajkumar @ Raju,
S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar,
R/o Gali no. 13, Wazirabad,
New Delhi
FIR No : 903/07
P.S. : Badarpur
U/s. : 420/489B/489C IPC
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.12.2010 (initial date of
institution 30.04.2008)
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19.12..2011
DATE OF DECISION : 21.12.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.012.07 at around 4:00 pm when SI Grijesh Singh alongwith other staff were on patrolling duty, found one Rajbir Singh apprehending accused Raj Kumar @ Raju State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 1) alongwith plastic bag in accused hand and produced him before them alongwith one fake note of Rs. 100 and on the search of pocket of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju one note of Rs. 50 and five notes of Rs. 10 were recovered which were given by the accused Raj Kumar @ Raju to Rajbir Singh for getting the change and from the recovered plastic bag six packets of Rs. 100 notes were found which were having total number of 584 notes and same were seized and sealed, pursuant to this statement of Rajbir Singh was recorded.
2. Rajbir Singh in his statement alleged that on 14.12.2007 at around 4:00 pm when he was standing on the bus stand near Sibal cinema for going Faridabad in the meanwhile one Nepali boy having plastic thaili get down from the bus and kept standing near him and asked him whether he was going Faridabad and further he told him that he is also going Faridabad. Thereafter he taken out one Rs. 100 note from upper pocket of shirt and asked to give the change, then he had given change of one note Rs. 50 and five notes of Rs. 10 and left the spot stating that he has to meet somebody else in border. He further alleged that he got suspicious and found that the note appeared to be forged one. Thereafter he stopped that boy stated to him that this is the forged note in the meanwhile the police staff also reached, who on apprehension revealed his name Raj Kumar @ Raju and from his bag 584 notes of Rs. 100/ were recovered and seized. Pursuant to this rukka was State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 2) prepared and FIR was registered.
3. During investigation the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded who stated that one Muntiyaz @ Munni use to deal in forged currency notes, who told that if he supplied these notes to customers then he will give him commission and today he told him to give the delivery to these notes at Badarpur Boarder. He further deposed that Muntiyaz is presently at Badarpur Boarder delivering the money to some other customer. Thereafter at his instance accused Muntyaz @ Munni was apprehended at Badarpur Border and on his search three packets of forged currency notes were recovered. Thereafter entire forged notes were sealed and both the accused persons were arrested. Accused Muntiyaz in his disclosure statement states that his relative Riyaz used to print forged notes at Meerut but despite search he could not be arrested. On completion of investigation, chargesheet against Raj Kumar and Muntiyaz u/s 420/489B/489C/120B IPC filed.
4. On committal accused Rajkumar is charged for offence u/s. 489B read with section 420 IPC and accused Muntiyaz charged with offence u/s. 489C IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
5. Prosecution for substantiating charges has examined six prosecution witnesses. Summary details of their deposition as follows.
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 3)
6. PW1 HC Daya Chand deposedd that on 14.12.07 at about 5:15 pm Ct. Akhilesh Kumar brought a rukka to him and after recording DD entry no. 26A he sent the rukka for computerized typing pursuant to which FIR was registered and he signed and handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Akhilesh Kumar. In cross examination he is stated that he has not typed the FIR.
7. PW2 SI Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 14.12.07 he alongwith SI Heera Lal, SI Grijesh Singh, Ct. Akhilesh, Ct. Manohar, Ct. Gopal, Ct. Harender were on patrolling in the that area. At 4:00 pm one Rajbir Singh found apprehending accused Raj Kumar @ Raju, on inquiry he told that accused had given a Rs. 100/ note for change and he found the said note to be duplicate and thereafter on search of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju, SI Grijesh Singh recovered one note of Rs. 50/ and note and five notes of Rs. 10/ from the pocket of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and he was also having a green colour bag from which some currency notes were also found. Public persons were requested to joint the investigation but they are refused to join the same, total 584 notes were found in the bag and those notes were seized and sealed on the spot and disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was recorded and who disclosed that he could get accused Muntyaz arrested as he met in the same area of the Badarpur Border.
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 4) Thereafter at the instance of the accused Raj Kumar @ Raju accused Muntyaz arrested from Badarpur Border and on his search three packets of currency notes of Rs. 100 found which were about 220 in number same were also seized and sealed.
8. In cross examination he stated that SI Grijesh Singh recorded the DD entry when they left police station and they were on general patrolling and have no specific information. He further deposed they left the police station and do not remember that who was the beat constable of that area and further do not remember whether SI Grijesh Singh noted down name of the persons who refused to join investigation or not. He further deposed that he do not remember colour of the clothes of the accused Raj Kumar @ Raju but he was wearing pant and shirt. He further deposed that he remained at the spot till 7:15 pm to 7:30 pm and thereafter went for search of the accused Muntyaz. He further deposed his statement was recorded in PS and on personal search of Raj Kumar @ Raju some currency notes were recovered. He further deposed that IO has not prepared the site plan where the accused persons were apprehended.
9. PW3 Ct. Harender also deposed that while patrolling with the team near Sibal Cinema they met one Rajbir Singh who produced accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and one Rs. 100/ rupee note and told SI Grijesh State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 5) Singh that Raj Kumar @ Raju had given him this fake note. Thereafter five notes of Rs. 10/ and one note of Rs. 50/ were recovered from the pocket of the accused and on checking of the green colour bag six bundles of Rs. 100/ notes were recovered which were in total 584 notes and those were seized and sealed. Thereafter IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Akhilesh to register the FIR. Ct. Akhilesh Kumar went to the PS and disclosure statement of the accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was recorded. Accused further disclosed that he was given fake note by Muntyaz who can be apprehended from Badarpur Border in the meanwhile Ct. Akhilesh Kumar came back PS with rukka and FIR registered. Thereafter accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was arrested and his personal search conducted. He further deposed that accused Raj Kumar @ Raju let then to Badarpur Border where he pointing out the accused Muntiyaz who was wearing black colour jacket and was apprehended, and from his left side inner pocket two bundle containing 89 fake notes each and third bundle having 42 fake notes were recovered and seized and sealed at spot and seal after use handed over to him. In cross examination, he deposed that police team left for patrolling from PS at about 3:30 PM and reached near Sibal Cinema at about 4:00 pm and remained there till 7:00 pm. He further deposed that accused Raj Kumar @ Raju produced by Rajbir Singh but he did not remember the colour of pant and shirt which he was wearing at that time and denied suggestion that accused Raj Kumar @ State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 6) Raju was lifted from his house. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan but he had not signed the same and not signed on personal search memo. He further deposed that Ct. Akhilesh was the beat constable of that area. He further deposed that he had not signed any of the seizure memo and personal search of memo same was signed by SI Mukesh and complainant Rajbir Singh. He further deposed that he do not remember whether any bus or rail ticket recovered or not from the pocket of the accused. It took about 3:00 to 3:30 hours to complete proceedings at spot near Sibbal Cinema. He further deposed personal search of the accused was also conducted before the arrival of Ct. Akhilesh. He further deposed that he returned the seal after 23 days but no memo of handing over was prepared. He further deposed that signature of the accused were taken in the presence of IO. He further deposed accused Raj Kumar @ Raj was arrested at 7:00 pm and accused Muntyaz at 9:00 pm.
10. PW4 Rajbir Singh deposed that on 14.12.2007 at around 4.00 p.m. when he was standing at bus stand Sibbal Cinema for going to Faridabad, one young boy got down from bus having a bag in his hand and came near to him and asked him where he was going to which he told that he was going to Faridabad and then he also told him that he was also going to Faridabad. Thereafter, took out a note of Rs. 100/ from his pocket and asked change of Rs. 100/ and on which he had State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 7) given change consist of one note of Rs. 50/ and five notes of Rs. 10/. On doubting the fake currency note he stopped that boy and told him that it appears to be jaali. In the meanwhile 23 persons gathered and 56 police persons also came, thereafter boy admitted fake currency note and from his search six packets of Rs. 100/ notes recovered. He further deposed that the notes recovered from accused Raj Kumar were put in a parcel and sealed and accused was arrested in this case and thereafter, he made a disclosure statement. He further deposed that when police brought accused Muntiyaz he had seen him and identified him in the court. Addl. P.P. requested to cross examine the witness as he is silent on material points. In cross examination, he deposed that it is wrong to suggest that accused Raj Kumar pointed towards Muntiyaz in his presence. He further deposed that it is wrong to suggest that that said currency notes recovered from Muntiyaz were taken in possession by the IO.
11. In cross examination, he deposed that he was waiting at bus stand for going to Faridabad and had not noticed from which bus accused Rajkumar got down and he was wearing jeans pant and shirt at that time but colour he do not remember and police reached after about 1520 minutes. He further deposed that he cannot tell the number of fake Rs. 100/ note but again said that it might 0568. He further deposed that he remained at the spot for about 56 hours and reached State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 8) police station at about 10.00 p.m. He further deposed that at bus stop police had taken signature of accused Raj Kumar on some papers. He further deposed that there are no signatures of accused on seizure memo on Ex. PW2/A, 2/B and PW2/C, vol. as he refused to sign on the same. He further deposed that some of the public persons were asked to join but they refused. He further deposed that he cannot tell what was recovered from accused persons in their personal search and also do not remember the name of police officials who came to spot.
12. PW5 SI Girjesh deposed that on 14.12.2007 when they were on patrolling, at about 4.15 p.m. one person viz., Rajbir met them who produced accused Raj Kumar alongwith plastic green colour bag and also one note of Rs. 100/ and disclosed that accused had demanded change of Rs. 100/ and on checking the same it was found fake. He further deposed that on checking the front side pocket of accused , the said Rs. 100/ change was found and six other pocket of Rs. 100/ denomination were found and the same were taken into pulanda and sealed and thereafter he recorded the statement of Rajbir Singh and prepared rukka and sent the same for registration with Ct. Akhilesh. Thereafter, Ct. Akhilesh came to spot alongwith FIR and rukka and personal search of the accused was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded who stated that he took fake currency note from one Muntiyaz and presently he was at Faridabad border and at his State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 9) instance accused Muntiyaz was arrested from Faridabad border whose disclosure statement was also recorded and from his personal search three packet of Rs. 100/ in total 220 notes were recovered and same were taken into pulanda and sealed. Further the case property was sent to FSL Rohini and he had collected FSL report.
13. In cross examination he deposed that he asked 56 persons to join in the investigation but none agreed and he remained at the spot till 7.00 p.m. Before sending of the rukka he prepared seizure memo and sealed the case property and also recorded the statement of complainant. Ct. Akhilesh came back to spot after one hour after registration of FIR and during that time he had not recorded statement of any person at spot and also stated that he had not done anything at the spot. But again said that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar and also conducted his personal search during that time. He further deposed that thereafter at spot he recorded the statement of SI Mukesh, Ct. Harender, Ct. Akhilesh and others. He further deposed that thereafter they reached Badarpur border and at that time complainant Rajbir was also with them and no public person was joined at the time of apprehension of Muntiyaz. He further deposed that they had not joined any person from police picket Badarpur and remained at Badarpur till 9.00 p.m. He further deposed that they reached PS at around 10.30 p.m. and in PS he had not State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 10) recorded statement of any police person. Further in cross examination he deposed that he do not remember the DD entry by which they were patrolling in the area and no such DD entry was in the court file. He further deposed that they had also taken the jamatalashi of complainant Rajbir and before taking of jamaltaltashi of accused Rajkumar, he had not mentioned this in case diary. He further deposed that there as no signature of accused Rajkumar on Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/B as he refused to sign but had not mentioned the same in the challan neither in the statement of any of the witnesses.
14. PW6 Devak Ram, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini deposed that all currency notes, total 805, were found to be fake and the detailed report is Ex. PW6/A.
15. Accused persons in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and stated that they were lifted from their house and falsely implicated in the present case. Material Exhibits:
16. Ex.PW4/DA is the statement of PW4 Rajbir Singh recorded by the police pursuant to which rukka Ex.PW5/A was prepared and FIR was registered. Ex.PW2/A is the seizure memo of one note of Rs.100/ State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 11) bearing no. JSL 058668 alleged to be a fake note given by accused Raj Kumar to PW4 Rajbir Singh and was sealed in envelope with seal of GS, but this seizure memo do not bear the signatures of accused Raj kumar though he was also present when it was seized by the police. Ex.PW2/B is the seizure memo of one note of Rs.50/ and 5 notes of Rs.10/ from the pocket of the shirt of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju allegedly from the spot. This also do not bear the signatures of accused Raj Kumar. Ex.PW2/C is the seizure memo of 584 notes of denomination of 100 rupees alleged to be recovered from the plastic bag of green colour found in the right hand of the accused Raj Kumar and those recovered notes were put in envelope and packed in white cloth and sealed with seal of GS. This exhibit also do not bear the signatures of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju. Ex.PW2/G is the seizure memo of 220 notes of 100 rupees denomination found from the possession of accused Muntiyaz. This seizure memo also do not bear the signatures of accused Muntiyaz. Ex.PW2/D is the disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar. Ex.PW2/H is the disclosure statement of accused Muntiyaz @ Munni. Ex.PW2/E is the arrest memo of accused Raj Kumar and Ex.PW2/I is the arrest memo of accused Muntiyaz. Ex.PW2/F is the personal search memo of accused Raj Kumar showing seizure of Rs.50/ and a mobile phone. Ex.PW2/J is the the personal search memo of accused Muntiyaz showing State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 12) recovery of one mobile phone, one rupee of 50/ and one purse alongwith some papers.
17. Ld. Amicus curie for accused Raj Kumar submits that accused Raj Kumar was lifted from his house and entire recovery of forged currency notes were planted over him. Ld. Amicus curie for accused Raj Kumar submitted that PW4 is a stock witness of the police and he even had not disclosed in his testimony that what he was doing at that bus stop and from where he had come to that bus stop. Ld. Amicus curie further submits that the police had not taken the personal search of the stock witness. Ld. Amicus curie on the other hand also submitted that the seizure memo of the recovery of notes from accused Raj Kumar do not bear his signatures and also some of the seizure memos do not contain the address of PW4 Raj Kumar and even in some of the seizure memos parentage and address both of PW4 are not mentioned. Further there is an appreciable gaps between the signatures of the witnesses and contents of the seizure memos which itself shows that the signatures of the witnesses were taken on blank papers. Ld. Amicus curie submitted that even no malkhana register was produced before the court. Further, no public witness was joined in the entire proceedings. Ld. Counsel for accused Muntiyaz submitted that the prime witness PW4 Rajbir has not supported the prosecution over the arrest and recovery of alleged forged notes from the accused Muntiyaz.
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 13) Further the seizure memo of recovered notes do not bear the signatures of accused Muntiyaz and he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the present case.
18. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that there is huge recovery of forged currency from both the accused and there are no circumstances which suggests that PW4 is a stock witness of the police. The testimony of PW4 and other police officials is reliable and credible. The alleged forged notes were found to be counterfeit as per FSL report also. Ld. Addl. PP submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt.
19. Arguments heard. Record perused.
20. As per prosecution story at around 4 pm when accused Raj Kumar got down from a bus at Sibbal Cinema, bus stand, Badarpur, he met PW4 Rajbir Singh and asked him where he will go on this PW4 Rajbir told that he is going to Faridabad. On this accused Raj Kumar also stated that he has to go to Faridabad and asked change of 100/ rupees. Rajbir gave him the change of Rs. 100/ in denomination of one note of Rs. 50/ and 5 notes of Rs.10/ and thereafter accused started moving from that place but PW4 realized that said note was forged and stopped accused Raj Kumar and asked from him about the note, in the State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 14) meanwhile police also came thereafter accused admitted that it was forged note and further 584 notes of Rs.100/ denomination were also recovered from accused Raj kumar from a bag. Thereafter, statement of complainant was recorded and the notes etc were seized at spot and FIR was registered. Further, pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar, accused Muntiyaz was arrested from Badarpur border and from whom 220 notes of Rs.100/ denomination were recovered and those notes were also seized and sealed. Police has also seized and sealed one rupee of 100/ produced by PW4 Rajbir Singh. Therefore, as per prosecution there are 3 parcels of fake currency notes were prepared, one parcel containing only single note of Rs.100/, second parcel containing 584 notes of Rs.100/ denomination and third parcel containing 220 notes of Rs.100 denomination and all these parcels were deposited in malkhana and these notes thereafter sent to FSL and as per FSL report these notes are found to be fake on examination.
Description of incident:
21. As per testimony of PW4 Rajbir Singh when he was standing at bus stand Sibal Cinema for going to Faridabad, one young boy got down from bus having bag in his hand and thereafter on getting down asked change of Rs.100 pursuant to which he has given the change in State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 15) denomination of Rs.50 and 5 notes of Rs.10/ and after handing over of change he felt that said one currency note of Rs.100 is fake thereafter he stopped that boy and in the meanwhile 23 public persons collected and 56 police person also came there. This story as depicted by this witness appears to be very chancy in nature and requires very careful scrutiny for reliance. This witness stated that accused Raj Kumar got down from the bus and immediately asked him about the change of Rs. 100 and taken out that Rs.100 from his pocket. This witness had not stated that this note is taken out by this accused from the bag he was carrying. Further, on apprehension of the accused no bus ticket was recovered from him though as per this witness accused got down from a bus. This PW4 stated that 23 persons and 56 police officials came when he started making queries with accused about fake note but none of those public persons were made witness by police. Further this witness stated in cross examination that the police came about 1520 minutes after he apprehended the accused. This appears to be somewhat suspicious firstly if a person is carrying 584 jali currency notes he will ask for a change of Rs.100/ only and further if somehow that happened, he will not stay there with the person who had noticed that fact for 1520 minutes. The suspicion is further inflamed because of the fact that police stated that they were on patrolling duty that too with 56 police officials and even could not produce the DD entry of their patrolling duty before the court. This PW4 in his statement before State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 16) the police vide Ex.PW4/DA had stated that while the accused got down from the bus he noticed he was carrying one plastic thaili whereas the other witnesses and he himself in testimony before court deposed plastic bag having a sketch of man or woman. Further this witness PW4 had not disclosed what he was doing at that bus stop and from where he has come and for what purpose he was going to Faridabad. These questions are relevant to judge the credibility of chance/stock witness because in his deposition as a witness before the court he has given his address of Khoda colony, Gaziabad but the incident found to be one of Badarpur area, thus his standing at bus stop near Badarpur raises a obvious question what he was doing there because it was not his natural place of living further in none of seizure memos which he witnessed is having his residential address which is uncommon and unnatural because every time when a seizure memos is prepared, it bears name, parentage, address of witness. Therefore this circumstance of apprehending of accused Raj Kumar by him at the spot as alleged in itself do not appear to be reliable circumstance in absence corroboration with other concrete circumstances. Circumstances of Patrolling :
22. As per PW5 he alongwith SI Mukesh, SI Hira Lal, Ct. Akhilesh, Gopal, Manmohan, Harinder were on patrolling duty and when State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 17) reached Sibal Cinema at around 4.15 pm, they found accused with PW4. In cross examination he stated that it was a routine patrolling and he do not remember the DD no by which he was patrolling in the area nor such DD number is on judicial file. Another PW2 Mukesh Kumar also stated that they were on patrolling duty and at around 4 pm they reached the bus stand where accused Raj Kumar handed over by PW4.
This PW stated that PW5 SI Girjesh had recorded the DD entry and they were on general patrolling and not having any specific information and further he do not know who is the beat constable in that area. PW3 Ct. Harinder also deposed that they were on patrolling duty and left PS at around 3.30 pm and reached the spot at around 4 pm and also stated that IO might have made entry while leaving PS for patrolling and Akhilesh was the beat constable of the area. PW5 SI Girjesh (IO), PW2 SI Mukesh, and PW3 Ct. Harinder are only members of raiding party which are examined before the court by prosecution but none of these witnesses could tell the DD no of the patrolling nor the DD of said patrolling was filed on record. PW2 even could not tell the name of beat constable whereas PW3 stated that Ct. Akhilesh who is member of raiding party is beat constable of the area. This non filing and non disclosing of DD entry before the court raises doubt whether raiding party was in fact on patrolling duty or not. Seizure memo of the currency notes:
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 18)
23. 584 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.100 alleged to be recovered from accused Raj kumar from a plastic bag seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C and as per seizure memo these recovered notes were packed in envelope alongwith plastic bag and further pulanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of GS. But this seizure memo do not bear the signatures of accused Raj Kumar neither it is written on seizure memo that accused refused to sign on the same.
Ex.PW2/A is the seizure memo of one forged currency note of Rs.100 alleged to be given by PW4 to the police, allegedly given for exchange of Rs.50 and Rs. 10, this seizure memo alongwith seizure memo Ex.PW2/A also do not bear signatures of accused Raj kumar. PW5 IO SI Girjesh in cross examination stated that as accused Raj Kumar had refused to sign on the same therefore there is no signature of the accused Raj Kumar on same but this fact he was not mentioned either in the challan or in the statement of witnesses. PW4 also stated in cross examination that accused Raj Kumar refused to sign on the said seizure memos. This plea of refusal by PW 4 & 5 do not appear to be credible because accused Raj kumar had appeared to have signed on all other documents i.e, disclosure statement, arrest memo, personal search memo etc. then it appears difficult to digest why he has not signed the seizure memo of recovery of note. It points suspicion towards the fact that these fake notes might not be recovered at the said time and place State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 19) from accused Raj Kumar. The seizure memo Ex.PW2/G of 220 notes from accused Muntiyaz also do not bear the signatures of accused Muntiyaz and there is not explanation offered by any of the witnesses why Muntiyaz has not signed the same. Whereas all other documents like disclosure statement, arrest memo, personal search memo were duly signed by accused Muntiyaz. This all creates doubt over the preparation of the seizure memo in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
Circumstance of arrest and consequent recoveries of accused Muntiyaz:
24. As per prosecution accused Muntiyaz was arrested on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar and on pointing out of accused Raj Kumar from Badarpur border and from whom 220 fake notes of Rs.100 were recovered. PW4 Rajbir who accompanied the police party for the arrest of accused Muntiyaz in his testimony before court had completely denied that circumstance and stated that he had not accompanied the police at the time of arrest of accused Muntiyaz and further denied of any recovery from accused Muntiyaz. This all created doubt on the factum of recovery of fake notes from accused Muntiyaz and also on seizure memo of 220 notes alleged to be recovered from accused Muntiyaz which also bears signatures of PW4.
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 20) Further, at the time of arrest of the accused persons no public witness was joined even despite the presence of police picket at Badarpur border but as per PW5 no witness from that police picket was joined. PW4 in his statement stated that they remained at the bus stand Sibal Cinema for 56 hours at 10 pm and came with accused to PS whereas as per arrest memo of accused Muntiyaz he was arrested at Badarpur Border at around 8.40 pm. If the statement of PW4 in this regard is believed then police cannot be at Badarpur border for arrest of accused Muntiyaz at that time. This all created doubt on the factum of arrest and recoveries of fake notes recovered from Muntiyaz. Non production of malkhana record:
25. According to PW5 (IO), 3 parcels were prepared one parcel consists of one note of Rs.100, second parcel consists of 584 notes of Rs.100 and that parcel consists of 220 notes of Rs.100. And all this case property was deposited in malkhana. But no malkhana register was brought before the court to prove the factum of deposition of the same in malkhana. Further there is nothing before the court how this case property was sent to FSL and when this case property was received from FSL. FSL report Ex. PW6/A do not show that this case property was brought to FSL in sealed condition and only shows that 805 currency notes of Rs.100 were examined by them which were found to State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 21) be fake. PW6 though in cross examination stated that all the currency notes were received in sealed condition brought by Balkar Singh and further stated in examination in chief that all the notes were collected by Ct. Yogesh Kumar from FSL alongwith report in a sealed cover.
This witness PW6 stated after seeing his record. But no such record was filed before the court for perusal of the same. Neither Ct. Yogesh Kumar or Balkar Singh were examined before the court. Circumstance of receiving of 805 notes of Rs. 100 by FSL:
26. As per FSL report Ex. PW6/A and as per testimony of PW6 Devak Ram, Sr. Scientific officer FSL, they received 805 notes of Rs.100 and on examination all notes were found forged and same were sealed with the seal of DOC.FSL. This implies that all 805 notes after being examined in FSL were sealed together in one parcel. But in the testimony of PW2 when these notes were brought before the court in examination in chief , it is recorded that one envelope without any seal having one currency note of Rs.100 bearing currency note GSL 058668 was taken out and the same is Ex. P2. It is strange that when this note was already sent to FSL alongwith 584 and 220 fake 100 rupee notes, then how this note is produced before the court in unsealed condition with seal of GS whereas as per FSL report this note including the 804 other notes thus totalling 805 notes were packed by State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 22) FSL with the seal of FSL. This shows that either this note is not sent to the FSL or there is some tampering with FSL documents or there might be some other notes also available with the police which they had not brought on the record. And these discrepancies coupled with the omissions of not producing of malkhana register and non examination of witnesses of malkhana and the constables who had taken the notes to FSL or brought the notes from FSL creates suspicion over the factum of seizure etc. by the police.
Site plan:
27. As per testimony of PW2 Ct. Mukesh and PW5 SI Girjesh IO no site plan of spot or place of arrest of accused Muntiyaz was prepared. Non preparation of site plan in these circumstance appears to be prejudicial to the accused as PW4 appears to be sham/ stock witness and further other witnesses are police officials who could not even prove the DD by which they were patrolling in the area nor any other independent witness was joined. Thus in absence of site plan, it is very difficult to assess the spot and further deprived the accused to test the veracity of prosecution witnesses which could be enhanced by looking at the site plan.
Medical check up:
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 23)
28. As per prosecution case accused after their arrest were taken for medical examination . PW3 in his examination in chief deposed that accused persons were sent for medical examination but no medical examination report filed on court record.
Other Discrepancies:
29. There are no particulars of the address of PW4 Rajbir Singh mentioned on the seizure memos ex. PW2/C, Ex.PW2/B, Ex. PW2/A and Ex.PW2/G. Even in some of these seizure memos parentage of PW4 Rajbir Singh is not mentioned. And further there is a quite appreciable gap between the narrations and the place where the signatures were taken. This all creates suspicion and points towards inference that these signatures might be taken on blank paper and subsequently the documents were prepared.
30. PW5 in cross examination stated that he recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C of SI Mukesh Kumar, Ct.
Harinder, Ct. Akhilesh at the spot i.e, bus stand Sibal Cinema but PW2 SI Mukesh stated that his statement was recorded by IO in PS. PW5 stated he recorded the statement of Ct. Akhilesh and others. But Ct. Akhilesh who has taken the rukka to the PS and the material witness of State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 24) the raiding party has not been examined before the court neither other members of the raiding party i.e, Ct. Gopal, Manmohan, SI Hira Lal were examined before the court. Further, Ct. Harinder (PW3) was not made witness to any of the seizure memos. PW3 was handed over seals but no handing over or taking over memos were prepared.
31. According to police, as per disclosure statement of Muntiyaz, the recovered fake currency notes were printed in Meerut by one Mr. Riyaz and police remand also taken in this regard of accused Muntiyaz. But police unable to locate the said place and the accused Riyaz the real culprit who is running mafia of printing of fake currency notes. Police had not tried to search the real culprits.
32. On overall appreciation of evidence, the factum of apprehension of accused Raj Kumar by PW4 and giving him one rupee 100 for change and further recovery and seizure of forged currency notes from accused Raj Kumar and Muntiyaz appears to be doubtful. Further, there are material omissions by prosecution in non production of malkhana register and further omission to bring on record the tangible evidence how the said property was sent to FSL and how it was received from FSL. Further, non bearing of signatures over the seizure memos of accused Raj Kumar and Muntiyaz created grave doubt on recoveries of the notes from them.
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 25)
33. In view of above discussion, prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Thus, accused persons are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges. Accused Raj Kumar and Muntiyaz are further directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ each and one surety each in the like amount in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Announced in Open court
Dated: 21st December, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Jain)
ASJ03, SE, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
State vs. Muntiyaz etc., SC no. 187/10,(page no. 26)