Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Hemanth Reddy on 8 February, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. O. P. GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 22/10
FIR No. RC SIB 2010 E0002
PS CBI/EOU V/ND
U/s 489A/489B/489C IPC
CBI Versus Hemanth Reddy
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.The case of the prosecution is that a source information was received that Hemant Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy R/o Flat No. 445, Block 4-B, Air Force & Naval Officers Enclave, Plot No. 11, Sector 7, Dwarka, Delhi was indulging in illegal act of printing, possessing, circulating and use of counterfeit cheques of various US based banks. The same was developed and the accused was called to CBI office on 15.02.2010, During sustained questioning the accused accepted his involvement and disclosed that he had developed a computerised unit at his residence for printing counterfeit cheque for use in USA. The search of house of accused was taken in the presence of independent witness Sh. S.C. Chhabra, Manager, City Back Office, Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street, New Delhi. During search 65 printed counterfeit cheques in the names of various US based banks having face value of US $ 3,00,000 ( equivalent to Indian Rs. 1,25,00,000/- approximately) including few sheets having improper printing, blank coloured based paper sheets to be used for printing such counterfeit cheques, photo copies of printed counterfeit cheques in the name of various used US based banks, computer print outs of e-mails as made by the accused from his e-mail ID to his associate Paul Kutelmach at his e-mail ID and vice versa, complete computer 2 unit like LCD Monitor, CPU, colour printer, scanner, Laser Printer, Internet Modem, Key Board and mouse were recovered. The accused did not provide identity details and present whereabouts of Paul Kutelmach on whose direction he had been carrying out this illegal act.
2. Investigation revealed that accused had entered into an agreement dated 9.04.2009 that M/s FBV Solutions Corp., with its head office at Berner Strasse 28, Frankfurt, 60347, The Germany. The amount was received from US though other details like name of the sender etc. were the same as given in the e-mail. Accused after printing the details on the blank cheque forms received by him, sent the package containing the printed counterfeit cheque to Zachary Lee Saldi, 1529, Southfork Drive, Keller, Keller, Tx 76248, U.S., and mentioned the sendor's address as 159/39, Princess Bldg., 2nd Floor, E.R. Road, near J.J. Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400003. The cheques recovered from accused were counterfeit as per communication received from US Embassy in New Delhi. The same fell under the category of bank notes as per explanation u/s 489-A IPC.
3. During arguments on charge the counsel for the accused emphatically submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on assumption and presumption. The prosecution did not collect original cheques to show the difference between the original cheques and alleged counterfeit cheques. The accused did whatever he did in pursuance of the agreement dated 9.4.2009 copy of which was supplied by him to the Investigating Agency. The IO did not verify authenticity of the same.
4. The counsel for the accused also high lighted that IO wrote letter dated 2.3.2010 to ICE Attache, US Department of Homeland Security, 3 American Embassy, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi which is annexure D-10. Reply thereto is annexure D-11. The reply does not answer questions mentioned in annexure D-10. It narrates its own reasoning why it considered the cheques recovered from the accused as counterfeit.
5. The counsel for the accused drew my attention towards section 489-A IPC which refers to counterfeit of currency notes or bank notes. The explanation thereto defines 'bank note' as promissory note or engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any part of the world, or issued by or under the authority of any State or sovereign power and intended to be used as equivalent to or as a substitute for, money. Elaborating his submission he urged that the alleged counterfeit cheques which are annexure D-14 are neither currency notes nor bank notes. They are simply cheque and prosecution has described them as cheques in report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. According to him cheques are not covered by section 489A IPC.
6. The Ld. Special PP for CBI submitted that court should make a purposeful interpretation so as to effectuate the intention of the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to defeat the intention of the legislature wholly or in part. The purpose of legislation was that citizen should be protected from being deceived or cheated. The citizen deals with and transtact business with each other through the medium of currency. Currency is defined as a metal or a paper medium of exchange that is in the current use as per collins English dictionary. In support of his submission he relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Versus 4 Mathai Verghese and others (1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 746.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submission. I find that the counterfeit cheques annexure D-14 are not cheques in the ordinary sense of cheques. The reason being that they are not from account of any individual, the account number from which same purport to have been issued is not mentioned. It contains name of different banks and digital signature of authorised signatory. They are payable to the order of ( name blank ), order of specified person and order of (discard ). The word 'discard' appears to convey the sense 'ignore'. In other words the same means it is payable to bearer or whosoever present the same without caring for the name of payee. They are in the nature of bankers cheque/ pay orders. They are as good as currency.
8. I have advantage of going through the commentary of Dr. Hari Singh Gour/ a renowned Author on IPC 2009 Edition. At page 4586 it is mentioned that a hundi or a cheque payable to bearer on demand is, thus, a bank note for the purpose of Section 489-A IPC. Viewed in the light of the same coupled with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a court should adopt a purposive interpretation, I have no hesitation in holding that the present bankers cheques fall within the meaning of bank notes as per explanation to section 489A IPC.
9. I may add that the underlined words in the explanation quoted above make it clear that it need not be issued by Government or sovereign power. It includes a promissory note for payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of 5 banking in any part of the world. The subsequent words 'issued by or under the authority of any State or sovereign power', forms a separate category which has nothing to do with the first category. The two categories are separated by coma followed by word 'or' use of word 'or' shows that two categories are in the alternative and not in conjunction.
10. In the end I may mention that counsel for the accused candidly admitted that at the most the alleged counterfeit cheques can attract section 468 IPC viz forging of documents and not 489A IPC. I feel that even if this argument is accepted, still offence which would be attracted is section 467 IPC and not 468 IPC. The reason being that Draft/Bankers cheque is a valuable security within the meaning of section 467 IPC as per decision in 1979 Cr. L.J. NOC 95.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find that a prima-facie case for offence u/s 489A, 489B and 489C or in the alternative section 467 IPC is made out. Charge is directed to be framed accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (O.P. GUPTA)
on 08.02.2011 Additional Sessions Judge-02
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi