Delhi District Court
Maharashtra Etc. vs . Som Nath Thapa Etc. Reported As on 17 September, 2007
1 A.C. No. 05/2005
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH DAYAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Case I.D. Number 02402R0412952005
A.C. No. 05/2005
RC No. SIB.2004.E-0003 EOU-VI
Assigned to Sessions 31.01.05
Arguments on heard on 03/09/07
Date of order 17/09/07
IN THE MATTER OF :
C.B.I
Versus
i) Puran Singh, Inspector
S/o Shri Khanda Singh
R/o B-33, Moti Bagh-I,
New Delhi
ii) Gaurav Aggarwal, Sub Inspector
S/o Shri Surendra Kumar
R/o E-15, Gali No. 26A,
Molarband Extension,
New Delhi
iii) Abdul Karim Telgi
S/o Shri Laad Saheb Telgi
R/o Khanapur District Belgaum,Karnataka
iv) Om Prakash, Head Constable
No.18SD, 2008/ND
S/o Shri Mahipal Singh
R/o House No. 111, Mahalian Mohalla,
Ghonda, Near Sleempur, PS Usmanpur, PO Mouzpur,
Delhi 53
v) Ratan Singh, Constable
No. 1233SD, 9533/DAP
2 A.C. No. 05/2005
S/o Late Shish Ram
R/o C-531, Nathupura, Delhi 84
vi) Sanjay Bajad, Constable
No. 2021SD
S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh
R/o 141-A, Bank Colony,
Mandoli, Delhi 93
...Accused Persons
ORDER ON CHARGE
1.This case was registered in the Central Bureau of Investigation on 20.02.2004 against accused Puran Singh , Gaurav Aggarwal and Abdul Karim Telgi on the basis of a complaint submitted by Inspector B.S. Jha of Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. In the FIR, it is alleged that accused Puran Singh Inspector Delhi Police along with Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector Delhi Police and others conspired with accused Abdul Karim Telgi and others during 1999-2001 and in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy, aided and abetted the offences of printing and selling counterfeit stamps of Government of India as genuine to various business houses causing huge monetary gain to themselves and 3 A.C. No. 05/2005 corresponding loss to the Government. It is also alleged that Puran Singh Inspector while conducting investigation in case FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony, New Delhi along with Gaurav Aggarwal and others came in contact with accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Puran Singh Inspector and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Abdul Karim Telgi and others during 1999- 2001 with the object to sell counterfeit stamps of Government of India as genuine stamps to various business houses which were printed by accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Puran Singh Inspector and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, knowingly and deliberately kept accused Abdul Karim Telgi out of the purview of investigation. Besides favouring accused Abdul Karim Telgi, even when one Sh. Anand wanted in case FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony was arrested, Puran Singh did not investigate/file charge sheet against him.
3. It was further alleged that Puran Singh Inspector illegally checked the stock of stamps of various companies 4 A.C. No. 05/2005 without any basis by abusing his position as public servant. Accused Abdul Karim Telgi, in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, supplied counterfeit Foreign Bill Stamps of Rs.1,50,000/- to M/s Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd through his men working in M/s Unique Consultants, Delhi. These stamps were reportedly sent to Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation along with documents. Puran Singh visited Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 06.12.00 in connection with the investigation of case FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony. He checked and declared the Foreign Bill Stamps presented along with documents by M/s Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. to be bogus and issued instructions to the said bank to keep the same in safe custody but did not investigate the matter any further. Puran Singh on 07.12.00 visited the office of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd, Devika Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi and checked the available stock of Foreign Bill Stamps. He declared the same to be fake and seized the same. On 08.12.00, Puran Singh Inspector caught Prehlad Singh, 5 A.C. No. 05/2005 delivery boy of M/s Blue Star Services without following the due legal procedure and got a case FIR No. 878/00 , PS Kalkaji, New Delhi registered by abusing his position. It was further alleged that during the course of investigation of counterfeit stamp cases Puran Singh Inspector and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector (dismissed ) did various illegal acts by preparing seizure memos, recording false statements etc and facilitated accused Abdul Karim Telgi to expand his racket of counterfeit stamps. It was further alleged that Puran Singh Inspector accepted illegal gratification and abused his position as Police Officer to obtain wrongful gain for himself and demanded/accepted cash of Rs. 2,95,000/- from Narender Singh accused in FIR no. 878/00, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi by allowing him to withdraw the amount by four cheques from the Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, New Delhi, while he was in police custody on 11.01.01. It is further alleged that Puran Singh Inspector had accepted huge amounts from others who figured in counterfeit cases being investigated by him for not performing his duty or 6 A.C. No. 05/2005 showing favours otherwise. After the investigation a charge sheet was filed against accused Puran Singh Inspector, Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector , Abdul Karim Telgi, Om Prakash Head Constable, Rattan Singh Constable and Sanjay Bajad Constable. In this charge sheet it is alleged that based on the available evidence in the instant case three separate conspiracies have to be hatched by the accused persons. The present charge sheet relates to the first, which has been described as under:-
The first criminal conspiracy in point of time, was hatched amongst accused Puran Singh Inspector, Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector, Om Prakash Head Constable, Sanjay Bajad Constable, Rattan Singh Constable and Abdul Karim Telgi as early as in November 1999, immediately after the registration of FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony case. This conspiracy was carried forward by the aforesaid accused persons during December 2000 and January 2001, when Puran Singh Inspector, abusing his official position, dishonestly extended the scope of the investigation of the FIR 7 A.C. No. 05/2005 no. 878/00 , PS Kalkaji, New Delhi by planting seizure of fake stamps on 10.12.00 and 17.01.01, upon the purported disclosures of Prehlad Singh and Jaikishan Singh @ Bangali. The evidence regarding the payment of bribe of Rs. 10 lacs by Abdul Karim Telgi to Puran Singh Inspector has emerged on record of this case. Aspects of criminal misconduct , giving false information to screen an offender, fabrication of false evidence and leveling of false charges of offences, with intent to cause injury to the said person, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, are established against the conspirators.
4. A supplementary charge sheet has also been filed against the aforesaid accused persons wherein it is alleged that Puran Singh Inspector , Delhi Police while conducting investigation in FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony, New Delhi, along with Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector and others came in contact with accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Puran Singh Inspector and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Abdul Karim Telgi and others during 1999-2001 with an object to sell 8 A.C. No. 05/2005 counterfeit stamps of Government of India as genuine stamps to various business houses which were printed by accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Puran Singh Inspector and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector , in furtherance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy , knowingly and deliberately kept accused Abdul Karim Telgi out of the purview of investigation. Besides favouring accused Abdul Karim Telgi, even when one Sh. Anand wanted in case FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony was arrested, Puran Singh did not investigate/file charge sheet against him. Investigations have revealed that Puran Singh Inspector while investigating the case FIR no. 878/00, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi had visited Chennai along with accused Abdul Karim Telgi and had issued false/fictitious House/ Office Search Memos in respect of M/s Marina Services, an established firm of accused Abdul Karim Telgi and in respect of the residential premises of Nizamuddin, proprietor of Marina Services and a close associate of accused Abdul Karim Telgi on whose licence Telgi was doing the business of fake stamps. Further 9 A.C. No. 05/2005 investigations were conducted at Chennai and the same revealed that certain Search Memos were issued by Puran Singh Inspector under his seal and signatures, in respect of the business establishments of Accused Abdul Karim Telgi indicating that Puran Singh Inspector had conducted searches in the said premises but no fake stamps etc. except genuine stamps were found in the said premises meaning thereby that the firms of accused Abdul Karim Telgi i.e. Marina Services & Shara Enterprises, etc were dealing in genuine stamps only ). Investigations have also revealed that in fact no searches etc. in the said premises were ever conducted by Puran Singh Inspector and these memos were prepared by Puran Singh Inspector in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched amongst Puran Singh, Abdul Karim Telgi and others just with a view to facilitate the sale/expansion of the fake stamp's business of accused Abdul Karim Telgi in Chennai and other parts of Tamil Nadu. Investigations have also revealed these memos were prepared by Puran Singh Inspector under his seal and signatures, were 10 A.C. No. 05/2005 frequently used by the Marketing Executives of M/s Marina Services and Shara Enterprises (both established firms of accused Abdul Karim Telgi) for obtaining the orders of stamps from LIC and others clients by showing the same as a certificate to the effect that they were dealing in genuine stamps only. Investigations have also revealed that the copies of two such false/fictitious House/Office Search Memos were available on record of RC No. 02/2004, EOU-
VII, which were seized from the office of Marina Services/Shara Enterprises by the CID CB and a copy of one such false/fictitious House/office search Memo was handed over to the IO of the said case by Sh. M. Mohana Peruman, Manager (Claims), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Sellur, Madurai, Tamil Nadu along with the correspondence file of LIC, Madurai. Investigations also revealed that the above said two House Search Memos and House/Office Search Memo dated 01.06.01 do not find any mention in the Case Diary file of FIR no. 878/00 PS Kalkaji, New Delhi investigated by Puran Singh Inspector. Even no case diary 11 A.C. No. 05/2005 for 01.06.01 in FIR no. 878/00 PS Kalkaji, New Delhi has been issued by the accused Puran Singh Inspector who was the Investigating Officer of the case. Investigations revealed that there were three search memos , first in respect of the Marina Services at X-42, Shop No. 9, Second Avenue, Sindoor Shopping Centre, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, second in respect of the residential premises of Nizamuddin, Proprietor of Marina Services at House No-R-217, Anna Nagar, Chennai and third in respect of M/s Shara Enterprises in which Saira Banno was working. These memos were prepared by Puran Singh Inspector at the behest of Abdul Karim Telgi on an occasion when Puran Singh had visited Chennai along with Abdul Karim Telgi, with a view to facilitate the fake stamp business of Abdul Karim Telgi in the State of Tamil Nadu. Accused Abdul Karim Telgi used to insist that the said memos have been obtained by him from Puran Singh Inspector by paying him huge sums of money and the same should be utilized frequently to enhance the sale of fake stamps and for obtaining orders etc. 12 A.C. No. 05/2005 from various clients including LIC, a potential client of Insurance Policy Stamps.
5. I have heard the Learned Special P.P for CBI and Learned Counsels for the accused persons on the question of framing of charges.
6. Learned Special P.P for CBI has argued that accused Puran Singh Inspector, Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector, Om Prakash Head Constable, Rattan Singh and Sanjay Bajad Constables were posted in the District Crime Cell, South District. Case FIR no. 803/99, PS Defence Colony and Case FIR no.878/00, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi were being investigated by Puran Singh Inspector. Accused Om Prakash Head Constable , Ct Rattan Singh and Ct. Sanjay Bajad were in the team of Puran Singh Inspector for investigation of these cases. Accused Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector who had also been posted in the District Crime Cell, South District was dismissed on 11.02.2000 and was reinstated on 12.02.01. Various recovery memos were prepared by Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector during the 13 A.C. No. 05/2005 period he was dismissed. Puran Singh Inspector seized several stamps from Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited on 08.12.00 vide D32/01. The expert opinion about the fake stamps shows that it had been supplied by Unique Agencies of accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Puran Singh Inspector did not take any further action and did not investigate the matter further in this respect.
7. Learned Special P.P for CBI has referred to the statement of Sh.Vijay Dattatreya Salunkhe @ Patil (PW No. 12, charge sheet No. 1) and has argued that this witness was working for accused Abdul Karim Telgi in conducting his business of counterfeit stamps and his statement shows that accused Abdul Karim Telgi in connivance with Puran Singh Inspector and other accused persons had helped in obtaining his bail from the court on 29.01.01.
8. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also referred to the statement of PW Khacheroo Khan (PW No.6, Charge Sheet No.1) from whose residence at Dakshin Puri , Puran Singh Inspector has shown the recovery of fake stamps. The 14 A.C. No. 05/2005 statement of the witness shows that Puran Singh Inspector has picked up Khacheroo Khan from his residence on the ground that one Prehlad had told Puran Singh that Khacheroo Khan had kept fake stamps in his residence and the matter needed investigation. The witness was brought to the office of Puran Singh Inspector at Nehru Place where Khacheroo Khan was detained in that office for about 2 hours and was asked to sign on 2-3 blank papers and then he was allowed to go. The statement of this witness is corroborated by the statement of Ct. Darshan Singh (PW No. 14 Charge Sheet No.1), who was working as driver with Puran Singh Inspector during the investigation of FIR No. 803/99, PS Defence Colony and FIR No. 878/00 PS Kalkaji, New Delhi. He has stated that he had taken Puran Singh Inspector to places like HSBC and Dakshin Puri etc. PW Sh. Rajesh Meena (PW No. 13 Charge Sheet No.1) has also stated that on most of the occasions seizure formalities were completed by Puran Singh Inspector after coming back to the office and not on the spot. On 08.12.00 Sh. Khacheroo 15 A.C. No. 05/2005 Khan of Dakshin Puri and his son were brought to the office of DIU/DCC, Nehru Place and paper/seizure formalities relating to seizure of fake stamps at the instance of accused Prehlad Singh were completed by Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector in the office of DIU/DCC, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector was under dismissal at that time but most of the time he used to write all the investigation documents of Puran Singh Inspector including his case diaries , seizure memos and disclosure statements etc. Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector had also gone to Dakshin Puri along with Puran Singh Inspector and the team. This witness was also a member of the team. Signatures of Khacheroo Khan were obtained on some white blank papers in the office of DIU/DCC, Nehru Place on the said date.
9. Learned Special P.P has also referred to the statement of PW Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali (PW No. 7 Charge Sheet No.1) who was earlier an associate of accused Abdul Karim Telgi. On 08.10.00, Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali 16 A.C. No. 05/2005 had gone to Indore. On the next day i.e. 09th October, 2000, he was informed by his wife that officers from Mumbai Crime Branch were looking for him. He thought that Abdul Karim Telgi might have implicated him in some case. He went to Mumbai to ask Abdul Karim Telgi about the matter. In the mean time, a false recovery of fake stamps worth Rs. 18 lacs were effected from his house and his wife was arrested. It appears that Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali and accused Abdul Karim Telgi fell apart after this incident. This witness has also stated that accused Abdul Karim Telgi had implicated him in the recovery of false stamps by Puran Singh Inspector. Accused Abdul Karim Telgi paid a bribe of Rs. 10 lacs to accused Puran Singh Inspector in his presence. The witness has also stated that during his police remand from 19.01.01 to 23.01.01, he was asked by Puran Singh Inspector to sign 25-26 blank papers in the presence of Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector. He had to sign these blank papers as he was in Police Custody. Puran Singh Inspector was insisting that this witness should admit that he was an associate of one 17 A.C. No. 05/2005 Hemant Dubey , who was a rival in business of accused Abdul Karim Telgi.
10. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also referred to the statement of PW Mohd. Gaus Maulali Shingavi @ Gaus (PW No. 8 charge sheet No.1) who has corroborated the evidence of Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali to the effect that accused Abdul Karim Telgi gave a big suitcase to Shanker and asked him to accompany Inspector Puran Singh and to show recovery of the same from Babu Bhai @ Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali Babu. Accusd Abdul Karim Telgi asked him to drop Inspector Puran Singh , Shanker and the said suitcase to the Hotel Gulf where Puran Singh was staying. Accused Abdul Karim Telgi also gave some money wrapped in a paper and kept in a polythene (plastic bag) to Shanker.
11. Reference has also been made to the statement of PW Surendra Vasantrao Wavare an advocate of Nasik (PW No. 9 Charge Sheet No. 1), who was made to sign on some blank papers which have been later on used for preparing the recovery memos against the accused Jai Kishan Singh @ 18 A.C. No. 05/2005 Bangali.
12. Reference has also been made to the statement of PW Shanker Singh @ Shiv Shanker Singh (PW No. 10 Charge Sheet No.1) to show that bribe was given by accused Abdul Karim Telgi to Inspector Puran Singh and Inspector Puran Singh planted false recoveries at the behest of accused Abdul Karim Telgi.
13. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also referred to the statement of PW Rajender Singh (PW No. 15 Charge Sheet No. 1) who was working as APS to Shri Ram Jethmalani , the then Minister of Urban Development to show the complicity of Puran Singh Inspector and accused Abdul Karim Telgi.
14. With respect to the second charge sheet , the Learned Special P.P for CBI has referred to the statement of Saira Banno (PW No. 2 Supplementary Charge Sheet) who had been appointed by one Abdul Wahid who was Managing Marina Services & Bharath Enterprises and Balaji in Bharath Enterprises , Moor Street, Mannady as Tele Marketing girl. Balaji was the in-charge of the Bharath Enterprises. This 19 A.C. No. 05/2005 office was controlled by accused Abdul Karim Telgi known as Big Boss. She was later on transferred as the Manager of the new company known as Shara Enterprises , which was launched in November 2000. These companies were supplying stamps to the offices of LIC etc. Their potential clients were different insurance companies i.e. Oriental Insurance Company., United India Insurance, National Insurance Co. and New India Assurance Co. and the main client was LIC. During the month of June-July 2001, Wahid had given to all the Marketing Executives of Shara Enterprises & Marina Services, photocopies of three memos/letters issued by Inspector Puran Singh of Delhi police under his seal and signatures to the effect that he had conducted searches in Shara Enterprises/Marina Services/residential Premises of Nizamuddin and no counterfeit stamps etc. except genuine stamps were found. Marketing Executives were directed by Wahid to show copies of the said Memos /letters of Puran Singh to all the LIC offices and other clients for obtaining orders of stamps and to 20 A.C. No. 05/2005 make them belief that the stamps supplied by M/s Shara Enterprises/Marina Enterprises were genuine Government stamps. The said memos /letters were prepared on one occasion on the request of accused Abdul Karim Telgi , with a view to eliminate the business rivals/main competitors of Telgi in Chennai who were engaged in supply of Insurance policy stamps to LIC, the most potential buyer of the said stamps. One Krishnamoorthy (husband of stamp vendor Andalamma) who was their man competitor in Chennai had already been arrested by Puran Singh Inspector on the request of accused Abdul Karim Telgi and after the arrest of Krishnamoorthy , fake stamps business of accused Abdul Karim Telgi had flourished in Chennai like anything. In the meetings attended by this witness, accused Abdul Karim Telgi used to tell that Inspector Puran Singh of Delhi Police was his very good friend who was helping him in his business of fake stamps all over India and that the Memos/letters issued by Puran Singh Inspector should be utilized for expanding his business of fake stamps and obtaining the 21 A.C. No. 05/2005 orders of stamps from different clients.
15. Reference has also been made to the statement of PW Sh. M. Mohanna Perumal (PW No. 6 Supplementary Charge Sheet) who was working as Manager (Claims ) LIC of India, Divisional Office, Sellur, Madurai, Tamil Nadu. He has stated that the copy of the House Search Memo dated 01.06.01 was given to LIC, Madurai Division by the Marketing Executive of the above said firms i.e Marina Services/Shara Enterprises in order to convince the LIC authorities that they (Marina Enterprises/Shara Enterprises) were dealing in genuine government stamps only and therefore the same was available in the said correspondence file of LIC which was seized by Inspector Karmyal of CBI. Learned Special P.P for CBI has argued that from the above evidence a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons with respect to the allegations made in the two charge sheets. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also referred to the various case diaries recorded by Inspector Puran Singh to show that accused Rattan Singh Ct., Sanjay 22 A.C. No. 05/2005 Bajad Ct. were members of his team who have signed on various memos and had accompanied him to Mumbai on several occasions. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also referred to the document bearing No. D59 and D-60 of the first charge sheet to show that Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector was dismissed on 11.02.2000 and was reinstated on 12.02.01. He has referred to the various reports on document sent to CFSL to show that various recovery memos have been prepared by Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector during this period when he was dismissed from service. He has also referred to the case diaries of Inspector Puran Singh to show that HC Om Prakash was also an active member of team of Puran Singh and the persons arrested by Puran Singh were kept in his custody.
16. It has been argued on behalf of accused Puran Singh that the present case relates to the alleged fabrication of some disclosure statements and recovery memos by the accused and a criminal conspiracy to commit offences under section 193 and 211 IPC. The said offences are alleged to 23 A.C. No. 05/2005 have been committed in relation to criminal proceedings which were tried to be by a Court of Law . Hence no Court could take cognizance of the offences without the complaint in writing of the Court by which the said offences were triable by virtue of section 195 (b) (1) IPC.
17. It has further been argued on behalf of accused Puran Singh that the allegations made against him about the false implication of Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali, Krishnamoorthy, Andalamma and T.R. Babu etc. are false in as much as the CBI has filed a charge sheet in the case FIR no. 878/00 PS Kalkaji, New Delhi in (RC 2003E 0002 Dated 29.09.03) against Narender Singh and Prehlad Singh . In this charge sheet, names of the aforesaid for accused persons exists in Coloumn No. 2 which relates to the accused arrested or not but not sent up for trial. Their fate is yet to be decided by the Trial Court. The CBI has not moved any application for their discharge so far. It is further argued that the aforesaid persons are not innocent persons but they are the active scam runners. They were arrested with 24 A.C. No. 05/2005 sufficient documentary proof of fake stamps. Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali was running the perforating machine to punch the fake stamp sheets. He had purchased the machine in the name of this firm from India Security Press Nasik in an auction. He was arrested in the case by Puran Singh on 09.01.01 and remained in Police Custody till 23.01.01. He was then sent to jail and was admitted on bail by the Court on 08.03.01 but was again taken into custody by Nasik Police from the Jail on 24.03.01 in a case registered against him. His wife and other employees were already arrested by Nasik Police and Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali was the absconder in the case of Nasik. Followed by his disclosure, fake stamps of Rs. 12.97 crores were recovered from him. He is still languishing in Pune Jail under MACOCA in other fake stamp cases and CBI has given him clean chit and cited him as a PW against the accused Puran Singh in this case. It is further alleged that Krishnamoorthy is the husband of Ms. Andalamma, a stamp vendor of Chennai, who was supplying fake stamps to LIC Chennai. 25 A.C. No. 05/2005 Followed by the disclosure of Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali, fake stamps of Rs. 1.17 lac were seized from three branch offices of LIC Chennai and with the documentary proof , he was arrested on 31.01.01. He remained in Police Custody till 11.02.01 and then sent to Jail. He was granted bail on 02.03.01. After his bail from Delhi case, he was also arrested by Hyderabad Police in other similar case of fake stamps. He remained in Pune Jail also. CBI has given him clean chit and cited him PW against the accused Puran Singh in this case. Ms. Andalamma was the stamp vendor, who was supplying fake stamps to LIC Chennai. She was admitted on anticipatory bail by the Delhi Court on 03.04.01 and was formally arrested in the case on 19.05.01 by Puran Singh Inspector. Similarly T.R. Babu who was the employee of Krishnamoorthy and Andalamma, was arrested in the case along with Krishnamoorthy on 31.01.01. He remained in Police Custody till 02.02.01 and then sent to Jail. He was granted bail by the court on 19.03.01. The aforesaid presons have criminal history and they are not innocent. The CBI 26 A.C. No. 05/2005 has falsely given them a clean chit to show that they were falsely implicated by accused Puran Singh while investigating the aforesaid cases in his capacity as an Inspector of Delhi Police. He cannot be tried for the alleged offences committed by him during the course of his duties without the necessary sanction under section 197 Cr.PC and 140 of Delhi Police Act.
18. It has been argued on behalf of accused Rattan Singh Constable ,Sanjay Bajad Constable , Om Prakash Head Constable and Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector that there are no allegations of making demand of bribe or acceptance of any bribe by these accused persons. Accused Rattan Singh Constable, and Sanjay Bajad Constable were merely assisting accused Puran Singh Inspector and they were not aware of the conspiracy between accused Puran Singh Inspector and accused Abdul Karim Telgi. It has been argued on behalf of Om Prakash Head Constable that he had not signed on any documents such as the recovery memos or disclosure statements. There is no evidence to involve him in 27 A.C. No. 05/2005 the offences alleged against the co-accused persons.
19. There are two pairs of sections relating to the discharge of an accused or framing of charge against the accused with which we are concerned. As Special Judge trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has to try the cases following the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases by a Magistrate. The relevant sections in this regard are Section 227 and 228 Cr.PC, which read as under:-
" Section 227 Cr.PC- Discharge:- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing and submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
"Section 228 Cr.PC - Framing of charge:- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, 28 A.C. No. 05/2005 the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may, frame a charge against the accused and , by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
20. The relevant sections during a session trial are sections 239 and 240 Cr.PC, which are as under:- 29 A.C. No. 05/2005
"Section 239 Cr.PC- When accused shall be discharged:- If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any , of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
"Section 240 Cr.PC- Framing of charge- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter , which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him , he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The Charge shall then be read and 30 A.C. No. 05/2005 explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
21. After considering the provision of the aforesaid sections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa etc. reported as 1996 Crl. L. J. 2448 has held that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a Court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame charge against him for committing that offence. In Black's Law Dictionary word "presume" has been defined to mean " to believe or accept upon probable evidence"
Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it 31 A.C. No. 05/2005 differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
22. Thus while considering the allegations against the accused persons for the purposes of framing of charges, the Court has to see whether there are grounds for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and with this in view let us consider the evidence, which has been gathered during investigation by the police.
23. Statements of PWs Khacheroo Khan, Mohd. Gaus Maulali Shingavi @ Gaus show that accused Abdul Karim Telgi had given bribe money to accused Puran Singh . Accused Abdul Karim Telgi had also given a big suitcase to Shanker and asked him to accompany Inspector Puran Singh and to show recovery of the same from Babu Bhai @ Jai 32 A.C. No. 05/2005 Kishan Singh @ Bangali Babu. Puran Singh Inspector acting on these directions of accused Abdul Karim Telgi and in pursuance of the conspiracy, planted a recovery of fake stamps from Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali for worth Rs. 13 crores 8.80 lacs on 16.01.01. The statements also show that the signatures of Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali were obtained on blank papers. The evidence also shows that Puran Singh Inspector had prepared fictitious disclosure statements of Prehlad Singh dated 09.12.00, pointing out cum seizure memo dated 08.12.00, pointing out cum seizure memo dated 10.12.00 showing the recovery of fake stamps etc from the house of PW Khacheroo Khan. Puran Singh Inspector has shown the false recovery of Attachy Case containing counterfeit stamps worth Rs. 12 crores 97 lacs and 5 thousands. These memos have been signed by Sanjay Bajad Constable and Rattan Singh Constable as witnesses. Their involvement in the conspiracy can therefore be presumed because they had been associated with Puran Singh Inspector during the entire investigation of case FIR no. 33 A.C. No. 05/2005 803/99, PS Defence Colony, New Delhi and FIR No. 878/00, PS Kalkaji, New Delhi . Both Sanjay Bajad and Rattan Singh Constables were aware of the fact that the recoveries have not been effected from the accused persons but have signed as attesting witnesses on the memos. These fake memos have been prepared by Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector, who was dismissed from the service at the relevant time.
24. So far as the involvement of accused Om Prakash Head Constable is concerned, Learned Special P.P for CBI has drawn my attention to the various Station Diaries filed with the supplementary charge sheet showing that the accused Jai Kishan Singh @ Bangali was kept in the custody of Om Prakash Head Constable Sanjay Bajad Constable and Rattan Singh Constable during the period these fake recoveries were made by accused Puran Singh Inspector, he was an active member of the team of Puran Singh. He had gone to Mumbai along with Puran Singh Inspector, Sanjay Bajad Constable, Rattan Singh Constable on several occasions. One such departure entry dated 06.01.01 has 34 A.C. No. 05/2005 been pointed out by Learned Special P.P for CBI during the arguments. This is the time when alleged conspiracy took place between accused Puran Singh and accused Abdul Karim Telgi. Learned Special P.P for CBI has also pointed out that several Air Tickets were recovered from accused Puran Singh Inspector showing that he had gone to Mumbai and various places by air but had not claimed any traveling expenses or other charges from his office.
25. The statements of Saira Banno and M. Mohana Peruman, Manager (Claims), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Sellur, Madurai, Tamil Nadu show that accused Puran Singh at the instance of accused Abdul Karim Telgi had searched the premises of Shara Enterprises/Marina Services/residential Premises of Nizamuddin on 01.06.01 and prepared three memos/letters under his seal and signatures to the effect that he had conducted searches in Shara Enterprises/Marina Services/residential Premises of Nizamuddin and no counterfeit stamps etc. except genuine stamps were found . The evidence also show that these 35 A.C. No. 05/2005 memos/letters were used by aforesaid concerns of accused Abdul Karim Telgi to enhance their business and were submitted to LIC to procure orders. Prima facie the involvement of Puran Singh Inspector in the conspiracy to help accused Abdul Karim Telgi in his business is also made out.
26. The first question which has been raised on behalf of accused is the necessity of a complaint under section 195
(i) (b) of Cr.PC . Learned Counsel for the accused have relied on the judgment in the case of Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. The State of West Bengal reported as AIR 1979 Supreme Court 777 and it has been pointed out that while Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code enumerates the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 195 bars taking cognizance of certain offences except on complaint by authorities specified in the Section. Section 195 (1) (a) requires that the complaint should be by a public servant if the offences complained of are under Ss. 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Sub-sec (1) (b) refers to offences under Ss. 193, 194, 36 A.C. No. 05/2005 195, 196, 199, 200,205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 and requires the complaint in writing of the Court before whom the offences is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court.
27. The Learned Counsel for the accused have argued that since fake recovery memos were allegedly prepared by Puran Singh Inspector, they were in relation to the proceedings before a court, a complaint by the competent court is necessary.
28. In the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another reported as AIR 2005 SC 2119. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
Broadly, S.195 Cr.PC deals with three distinct categories of offences which have been described in cls. (a) ,(b) 37 A.C. No. 05/2005
(i) and (b) (ii) and they relate to (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offences against public justice, and (3) offences relating to documents given in evidence. Cl. (a) deals with offences punishable under Ss. 172 to 188 IPC which occur in Chap.X of the IPC and the heading of the Chapter is
-'Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants' The offences mentioned in this clause clearly relate to giving or fabricating false evidence or making a false declaration in any judicial proceeding or before a court of justice or before a public servant who is bound or authorized by law to receive such declaration, and also to some other offences which have a direct co-relation with the proceedings in a Court of Justice (Ss. 205 and 211 IPC). This being the scheme of two provisions or clauses of S.195, viz., that the offence should be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct co-relation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring in cl. (b) (ii) 38 A.C. No. 05/2005 should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with cls. (a) (i) and (b)
(i) and consequently with the scheme of S.195 Cr.PC. This indicates that cl. (b) (ii) contemplates a situation where the offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
29. Since these documents had not been produced in the Court when the offences alleged under section 193 and 211 IPC were committed. There is no need for a complaint by the Court for taking cognizance of the offences.
30. The Learned Counsel for the accused have relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajender Saini and Another Vs. State reported as 121 (2005) Delhi Law Times 595 and have argued that where the petitioners 39 A.C. No. 05/2005 are such public servants who cannot be removed from office except with sanction of Government: For their prosecution for act purported to be an act in discharge of their official duty, action cannot be taken except with pre-requisite sanction of state Government.
31. Learned Counsel for the accused have argued that accused Puran Singh Inspector , Sanjay Bajad, Rattan Singh Constables and Om Prakash Head Constable were acting in discharge of their duties as officials of Delhi Police while investigating the case FIR No. 803/99, PS Defence Colony and FIR No. 878/00 , PS Kalkaji, New Delhi , they cannot be prosecuted for any offences without sanction of the Government under section197 Cr.PC and 140 of Delhi Police Act.
32. It was held in the case of Prakash Singh Badal and Another Vs. State of Punjab reported as IV (2006) CCR 335 (SC) that the Principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servants has to perform in the exercise of the functions of the Government. The purposes for which they are 40 A.C. No. 05/2005 performed protects these acts from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public servant's own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity.
33. In the instant case, it has been alleged and shown that the accused Puran Singh Inspector, Rattan Singh Constable ,Sanjay Bajad Constable and Om Prakash Head Constable had conspired with the accused Gaurav Aggarwal Sub Inspector and accused Abdul Karim Telgi and huge amounts were paid by accused Abdul Karim Telgi to accused Puran Singh Inspector for helping him in his business of fake stamps and to destroy the business of rivals. Such acts cannot be said to be acts by the accused persons in performance of their official duties. The accused cannot be allowed the protection of state immunity in such circumstances.
34. Under the circumstances, I find that there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against all the accused 41 A.C. No. 05/2005 persons.
35. It is ordered that charges under section 120 B read with section 119, 193, 211, 218, 221, 259 IPC and section 7, 12, 13 (i) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act be framed against all the accused persons .
36. It is further ordered that charges under section 119, 193, 211, 218, 221 IPC and Section 7, 13 (i) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act be framed against accused Puran Singh.
37. Charges under section 193, 259 IPC and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act be framed against accused Abdul Karim Telgi.
38. Charges under section 193 and 211 IPC be framed against accused Gaurav Aggarwal, Sanjay Bajad and Rattan Singh.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17th Day of September, 2007 (DINESH DAYAL) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI