Delhi District Court
State vs . Javed And Others on 21 October, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ASJ-05
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI, DELHI
SC No. 18/2014
FIR NO: 72/11
PS Kashmere Gate
U/s 489-B/489-C IPC
UNIQUE ID NO:02401R0345252011
STATE vs. Javed and Others
STATE
vs.
(1) Javed S/o Sh. Nasruddin,
R/o E-821, Mangol Puri,
Delhi-85
(2) Keshav @ Kishan S/o Sh.Ganesh Baba
R/o H.No. 14, Gali No. 6/114,
Rajiv Nagar, Delhi
............Accused
Date of institution : 18.10.2011
Date of conclusion of final arguments /
reservation of Judgment : 10.10.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 21.10.2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Javed S/o Nasruddin was committed to the Court of Sessions by Learned MM (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to stand trial for possessing and selling counterfeit currency notes under Sections U/s 489-C and 489-B IPC respectively and co-accused Keshav@Kishan S/o Ganesh Baba was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial u/s 489 B IPC for possessing counterfeit currency notes.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 1 of 24 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The facts of the prosecution case as gathered from the charge sheet are that on 02.05.2011 at about 4.00 PM, ASI Mahender Singh was present at ISBT Kashmere Gate Police Post. A secret informer came to the police post and informed ASI Mahender Singh that one Javed, resident of Mangolpuri, Delhi who used to supply fake currency notes would reach near Ritz Cinema at about 5.30/6.00PM for supplying the same and if anyone deals with him in the name of Kishan he will supply the fake currency to him. ASI Mahender Singh along with secret informer reached Police Station Kashmere Gate at about 4.20 PM where ASI Mahender Singh produced the secret informer before Inspector Prem Singh Negi, ATO, officiating SHO. Thereafter, Inspector Prem Singh Negi directed ASI Mahender Singh to take necessary action. ASI Mahender Singh returned back to the police post at about 4.40 PM and recorded the information given by the secret informer in DD No. 23. ASI Mahender Singh formed a raiding party with HC Azad , const. Ved Pal and Const. Sandeep who were dressed in plain clothes. ASI Mahender Singh then along with the raiding party reached Ritiz Cinema bus stand on foot at about 4.50 PM. The secret informer informed ASI Mahender Singh that accused Javed would be found present near Ritz Cinema on the road going towards Red Fort. ASI Mahender Singh requested 3-4 passersby to join the raiding party but they refused to join the raiding party. ASI Mahender Singh finding no option deputed Const. Ved Pal to become decoy customer. ASI Mahender Singh also handed over to him four currency notes of Rs. 500/- each on which ASI Mahender Singh marked his initials "MS" vide handinsg over memo (Ex.PW1/A). directed Const. Ved Pal to obtain fake currency notes of Rs.2,000/- from Javed. He also directed HC Azad and Const. Sandeep to take position at Tikona Park near Ritz Cinema. In the meantime, ASI Mahender Singh, Const. Ved Pal and the secret informer stood amongst the passengers standing at the bus stand. At about 5.35 PM, accused Javed wearing black coloured T shirt and jeans and carrying a red coloured bag around his waist came from the side of ISBT local bus stand.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 2 of 24 3 He stood near Ritz Cinema, Kashmere Gate. The secret informer pointed towards accused Javed and informed ASI Mahender Singh. On this information, ASI Mahender Singh directed the decoy customer Const. Ved Pal to approach Javed for striking a deal. ASI Mahender Singh and other members of the raiding party in the meantime kept a watch on the decoy customer Const. Ved Pal. After about ten minutes, Const Ved Pal, decoy customer gave predetermined signal to the raiding party members by placing his right hand upon his head. ASI Mahender Singh then with the help of raiding party members apprehended the person who revealed his name as Javed S/o Nasruddin R/o F-821, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Const Ved Pal informed ASI Mahinder Singh that he had taken forty notes of Rs.100 each from accused Javed which accused Javed had taken out from his red coloured bag. Four currency notes of Rs.500/- given by Const. Ved Pal were kept by accused Javed in the right pocket of his jeans. The forty notes of Rs. 100/- each appeared to be fake and on close scrutiny, a slight difference was seen in its colour and design. In the thread of the notes, the words "India" and "RBI" were not found written and all the notes bore the number "7PP 310576". Thereafter, ASI Mahender Singh kept the forty notes of Rs.100 each in a transparent polythene and prepared a pulanda after keeping the polythene in a plastic container after closing its lid with the help of a plastic tape. The said pulanda was sealed with the seal of MS and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW1/B. Accused Javed took out four notes of Rs.500/- from the right pocket of his pant which were given by Const.Ved Pal posing as a decoy customer. These were the same notes which were given by ASI Mahinder Singh to Const. Ved Pal. Separate pulanda of said notes was prepared and sealed with the seal of MS Thereafter, the said pulanda was also seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C). ASI Mahender Singh took search of the red bag of the accused Javed. On checking the bag, eight bundles of Rs.100/- each were recovered. Serial Nos. A, B, C, D, E , F , G and H were given to the said eight bundles. On checking the bundle with serial No. 'A', it was found Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 3 of 24 4 containing 105 currency notes of Rs.100/- each. On every currency note, same number of 8KF 695731 was printed. When, bundle given serial no.'B' was examined, it was found to contain 89 currency notes of Rs.100/- each. On every note same number of 2 PP 425317 was printed. On checking the bundle given serial No.'C', 92 currency notes of Rs.100/- were found with 7PT 491538 printed on each one of them. On checking the bundles of serial no. 'D', 50 currency notes of Rs.100/- each with number JCC372055 printed on them was found. On checking the 'E' bundle, 100 notes of Rs. 100/- each were found and on each note, number 7 PT 491538 was found printed. On checking the 'F' bundle, 100 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were found with number 7PT 491539 printed on them. On checking 'G' bundle, 100 notes of Rs.100/- each were found with number JCS 372065 printed on them. On checking 'H' bundle, 24/- currency notes of Rs.100/- were found and on each note number 7PP 310576 was found printed. In all, total amount of Rs.66,000/- was recovered from the accused Javed. All the bundles which were given serial numbers A to H were kept in a polythene which was sealed in a plastic container. Separate pulanda was prepared, sealed with the seal of MS and was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW1/D). Another pulanda containing red coloured bag was prepared which was sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/E) . Seal after use was handed over to HC Azad Singh. ASI Mahender Singh then prepared a rukka and sent the same to the police station for registration of FIR u/s 489B/489C through HC Azad Singh. When ASI Mahender Singh, Const. Sandeep, Const. Ved Pal and accused Javed were still present at the spot, SI Benkatesh Kumar (IO) reached the spot. ASI Mahender Singh handed over the case property and seizure memos to SI Benkatesh Kumar who then prepared the site plan at the instance of ASI Mahender Singh and conducted further investigation in the matter. Accused Javed was formally arrested by SI Benkatesh Kumar and was sent for medical examination. After medical examination of the accused, he was taken to the police station. SI Benkatesh Kumar recorded the disclosure statement of the Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 4 of 24 5 accused. In pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused Javed, accused Keshav @ Kishan R/o House No. 14, Gali No. E 114/E, Rajiv Nagar, Delhi was arrested along with his van bearing registration No. DL-2CB- 6356. From the personal search of the accused Keshav, four notes of Rs.100/- each on which number 8KF 695731 was printed were recovered. From the maruti van bearing registration No. DL-2CB- 6356, 21 fake notes of Rs.100/- each with serial number JCS 372065 were recovered. All the 21 notes of Rs100/- each and the maruti van were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW5/B). Accused Keshav disclosed the name of his other associates as Rahis, Hathi and Ishrat whose whereabouts could not be traced. The fake currency notes recovered from both the accused persons were sent for expert opinion to Forgery Detection Cell, Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, Nasik (Maharashtra) through Const.Gajender Singh.
3. After completing investigation, charge sheet u/s 489B/489C IPC was filed against both the accused persons.
CHARGE
4. Charge under Section 489-C IPC was framed against the accused Keshav @ Kishan and charges u/s 489-B and 489-C were framed against accused Javed to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. Prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. HC Azad Singh was examined as PW 1, Const. Ved Pal was examined as PW 2, ASI Daljeet Singh was examined as PW 3, ASI Mahender Singh was examined as PW 4, SI Benkatesh was examined as PW 5, Const. Gajender Singh was examined as PW 6 , Const. Sandeep was examined as PW 7 and HC Hari Kishan was examined as PW8.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 5 of 24 6 VERSION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
6. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the prosecution's case was denied in toto and accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It was stated by accused Javed that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance. He was lifted at about 10.30 PM on 30.04.2011 from Guru Tegh Bahadur Red Light and the present case was filed by the police in connivance with SI Ajay Singh Negi who was Incharge of Police Post Kashmere Gate on 30.04.2011. SI Ajay Singh Negi falsely implicated accused Javed in the present case as he had refused to do iron fabrication work of SI Ajay Singh Negi without payment. Accused Keshav @ Kishan in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case when he was on his way to Pitam Pura. Nothing was recovered from his possession by the police and police has planted the counterfeit currency notes upon him. Accused Javed chose to lead evidence in his defence and examined his maternal grand father; Hazi Abdul Aziz as DW 1, Inspector Ajay Singh as DW2 and his brother Ahmed Ali @ Matru as DW3 .
EVIDENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE RAIDING PARTY:
7. ASI Mahender Singh who was the first IO and head of the first raiding party was examined as PW 4. He testified that on 02.05.2011, he was posted at PP ISBT PS Kashmere Gate and on that day at about 4.00 PM, he received a secret information that one person would be coming to Ritz Cinema with counterfeit currency. On receipt of the secret information, he prepared a raiding party comprising of HC Azad Singh (PW1), Const. Sandeep (PW7), Const. Ved Pal (PW2) and himself. At about 4.40 PM, the raiding party along with secret informer reached Ritz Cinema bus stand, Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 6 of 24 7 where he asked 4/5 passersby to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their addresses. On the basis of the briefing given by him, Const. Sandeep (PW7) and HC Azad Singh (PW2) took position near Tikona Park whereas he and Const Ved Pal (PW2) took position at the bus stand near Ritz Cinema. Const.Ved Pal (PW2) was handed over four currency notes of Rs.500/-each with his initials 'MS' vide handing over memo (Ex. PW1/A). He was directed to pose as Kishan (decoy customer) and strike a deal with the person who was to come with counterfeit currency notes.
8. He further deposed that at about 5.35 PM, accused Javed who was wearing black T shirt and black jeans carrying a red coloured pithho bag came from the ISBT side and stood near local bus stand adjacent to Ritz Cinema. The secret informer pointed out towards the accused Javed and left the spot. As instructed by him, Const. Ved Pal approached accused Javed and the deal was struck between accusd Javed and Const.Ved Pal after which, Const. Ved Pal signaled to them. Upon which, all the members of the raiding party overpowered accused Javed and apprehended him. Const. Ved Pal informed them that he had handed over four currency notes of Rs.500/- each to accused Javed and against the said amount accused Javed had handed him over Rs.4,000/- i.e 40 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. The said amount of Rs.4,000/- was handed over to him by Const. Ved Pal which was taken into possession by keeping the same in a jar and sealing the same with the seal of MS which was then seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. On personal search of accused Javed, four currency notes of Rs.500/- each were recovered from the right pocket of his jeans which were also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/C after converting the same in a pulanda. The bag which the accused Javed was found carrying was checked and found containing some clothes and Rs.66,000/- comprising of 8 bundles of currency notes of Rs.100/- each which were given Serial Nos. A to H. ASI Mahender Singh also gave the description of Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 7 of 24 8 the clothes recovered from the bag of the accused Javed.
9. He further testified that on checking, the currency notes amounting to Rs.
66,000/- recovered from accused Javed were found to be counterfeit. Thereafter, the fake currency notes were converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal of MS after keeping them in plastic box and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/D. The clothes were kept in the same bag which was sealed with the seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/E. He hen prepared a rukka (Ex.PW4/A) and handed it over to Const. Ved Pal (PW2) for the registration of case FIR. At about 8.00 PM, SI Benkatesh (PW5) came to the spot and was entrusted with further investigation. SI Benkatsh prepared the site plan at his instance. The entire case property duly sealed with the seal of MS and the accused were handed over to SI Benkatesh. Thereafter, SI Benkatesh recorded his statement after which he was relieved from the spot. Since, the case property had already been identified by other witnesses, the identification and exhibition of the same by PW 4 was not objected to and dispensed with.
10. HC Azad Singh, Const. Ved Pal and Const. Sandeep who were also the members of the raiding party were examined as PW 1, PW- 2 and PW7 respectively. They also testified on the same lines as ASI Mahinder Singh/ PW4 and corroborated his statement. HC Azad Singh, however, in addition to the testimony of PW 4 also deposed regarding the signal which Const.Ved Pal as decoy customer had to give after striking the deal with accused Javed. He testified that Const. Ved Pal (PW2) had to put his right hand over his head after striking the deal. PW 1 also during his testimony gave the details of the currency notes recovered from accused Javed at the spot. He testified that on checking the bundle 'A' 105 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered,On checking the bundle 'B' 89 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered, on checking the bundle 'C' 92 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered, on checking Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 8 of 24 9 the bundle 'D' 50 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered, on checking the bundle 'E' 100 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered,on checking the bundle 'F' 100 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered, on checking the bundle 'G' 100 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered and on checking the bundle 'H' 24 currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered. In all, accused Javed was found to be in possession of counterfeit currency amounting to Rs.66000/-. PW 1/ HC Azad Singh also testified that ASI Mahinder Singh had seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D & Ex.PW1/E and had sealed the same with the seal of MS. He further deposed that the rukka was also prepared by ASI Mahinder Singh and after registration of the FIR, SI Benkatesh put the FIR number on all the documents which were prepared by ASI Mahinder Singh and same were handed over to SI Benkatesh. Second IO (SI Benkatesh) had deposited the case property recovered from accused Javed with the MHC(M)on the same night.
11. Const. Sandeep/PW7 as discussed above also testified in a similar fashion.
He however, in contradiction to the statement of PW 4 testified that ASI Mahender Singh prepared a rukka which was taken to the police station for registration of FIR by HC Azad Singh and not Const. Ved Pal.
12. Const. Ved Pal while corroborating the statements of PW 4 and PW 1 also testified that the IO ASI Mahinder Singh/PW-4 had deputed him as decoy customer and handed him Rs.2,000/- i.e four currency notes in denomination of Rs.500/- each after appending his initials 'MS' on each currency note vide handing over memo Ex.PW 1/ A. When accused Javed had come to the local bus stand adjacent to Ritz Cinema, as instructed by PW 4/ASI Mahinder Singh, he had approached accused Javed and had introduced himself as Kishan to exchange the money. Upon this, accused Javed had taken out 40 currency notes of Rs.100/- from his bag in exchange of Rs.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 9 of 24 10 2,000/- which had been handed over to him. Immediately thereafter, he had signaled to the IO by touching his ear with his right hand. Upon which, the IO, HC Azad and Const Sandeep had come from behind the accused and had nabbed him. He too, gave the description of the counterfeit currency, the bag and the clothes lying in the bag which were recovered from accused Javed. He also testified regarding the case property having been sealed with the seal of MS by PW 4/ ASI Mahinder Singh, PW-4 preparation of the rukka and sending the same for registration. He further deposed that at about 8.15 PM, SI Benkatesh came to the spot who was entrusted with further investigation.
13. SI Benkatesh who was the second IO was examined as PW 5. He testified that on 02.05.2011, he was posted at PS Kashmere Gate and further investigation of this case was entrusted to him after registration of the FIR. Accordingly, on 02.05.2011 at about 8.15 PM, he reached near Ritz Cinema, Kashmere Gate where he met ASI Mahender Singh/PW4 who handed over accused Javed and four sealed pulandas i.e pulanda containing 660 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-each sealed with the seal of MS, pulanda containing 40 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- each, pulanda containing bag recovered from the accused Javed and a pulanda containing four currency notes (original) of denomination of Rs.500/-each.
14. PW-5 also testified that on reaching the spot, he recorded the statement of ASI Mahender/PW4, prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/G at the instance of ASI Mahender singh and arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW 1/F. He also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 1/G and recorded disclosure statement of accused Javed vide memo Ex.PW 1/H. In his disclosure statement, accused Javed disclosed that he had received counterfeit currency from accused Kishan, Hathi and Rahis and he could get them apprehended. Upon completion of the investigation, accused Javed was sent for medical examination and thereafter, case property was Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 10 of 24 11 deposited with MHC(M). PW-5 also recorded the statements of police personnels. Accused Javed had disclosed vide his disclosure statement Ex. PW1/H that accused Kishan@ Keshav would come from Jaipur on 05.05.2011 and that he could get accused Kishan @ Keshav arrested. In accordance with the disclosure statement of accused Javed, on 05.05.2011, efforts were made by the team led by PW5/SI Benkatesh along with accused Javed to search the coaccsued Kishan in the area of Mangolpuri, Rohini and ISBT but he could not be traced. Search for accused Kishan was again made on 06.05.2011 in the area of Mangolpuri, ISBT, Maurice Nagar and Nigam Both Ghat but in vain. Thereafter, on 07.05.2011, SI Benkatesh/PW 5, PW7/Const. Sandeep along with accused Javed reached Nigan Bodh Ghat, where they found accused Keshav @ Kishan to be present with his maruti car. Accused Keshav @ Kishan was then apprehended at the instance of accused Javed. From the search of the accused Keshav @ Kishan, four counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- each were recovered from the pocket of his pant and from the search of the maruti car bearing registration no. DL-2C-B-6356 of the accused Keshav @ Kishan, 21 fake currency notes of Rs.100/- each were recovered. All the fake currency notes recovered from accused Keshav were kept in a plastic box which was sealed with the seal of BK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/ A. The maruti car bearing registration no.DL-2C-B 6356 was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/B. Accused Keshav @ Kishan was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 5/ C. He also prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/G.
15. SI Benkatesh (PW5) further testified that after interrogation, disclosure statement (Ex.PW 5/ E) of accused Keshav @ Kishan was also recorded. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, house of accused Keshav @ Kishan bearing No.14, Gali No E/114, Rajiv Nagar was raided. From the search of the house of accused Keshav @ Kishan, nothing was recovered. Thereafter, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of accused Keshav @ Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 11 of 24 12 Kishan, efforts were also made to search the coaccused Deepak, Rahis and Hathi but all in vain. After which, he and others returned to the police station and got the case property deposited with the MHC(M). He also got sent the case property/exhibits to Printing Press, Nasik through Const. Gajender for opinion and that he received the report Ex.PX1 from Currency Note Press, Nasik that the currency recovered from the accused Javed and Kishan was counterfeit. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
16. ASI Daljeet Singh (Duty Officer) was examined as PW 3. He had testified that on 02.05.201, he was posted as ASI at PS Kashmere Gate and his duty hours were from 5.00 pm to 1.00 AM. On that day at about 8.00 PM, he received a rukka brought by HC Azad Singh sent by ASI Mahender Singh, on the basis of which, he registered the FIR No.72/11 (Ex.PW 3/ A) and his endorsement (Ex.PW3/B). He further deposed that he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Azad Singh for handing over the same to SI Benkatesh Kumar for further investigation.
17. Const.Gajender Singh who was examined as PW 6 testified that on 06.04.2011, he was posted at PS Kashmere Gate. On that day, he had joined investigation of this case with IO SI Benkatesh. During investigation, he along with the IO SI Benkatesh and accused Javed reached ISBT, Hanuman Mandir, GTB Nagar and Metro Station, Tis Hazari Court in search of co-accsued. Despite efforts they could not find coaccused Kehsav @ Kishan. On the next day i.e 07.04.2011, they along with accused Javed in search of co-accused Kishan @ Keshav. When they reached Nigam Bodh Ghat, one maruti 800 car of grey colour bearing registration no DL2CB 6356 was found stationed there. Accused Javed pointed out towards the said car stating that the coaccused sitting in the car. The coaccused Kishan @ Keshav was immediately overpowered by SI Benkatesh. On interrogation, he disclosed his name as Kishan @ Keshav and got recovered four currency notes in denomination of Rs.100/- each from the pocket of his Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 12 of 24 13 pant . Accused Keshav @ Kishan also got recovered 21 currency notes of RS.100/- each from his car. IO noticed that the recovered currency were not did not have words "RBI" and "Bharat". Accused Kishan@ Keshav disclosed that he was carrying these notes as sample to show to a person who was to come from Chandigarh. IO kept these 25 notes of Rs.100/- each in a plastic jar, sealed the same with the seal of BK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. The maruti car was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 5/B. Accused Keshav was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 5/ C, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/D and his disclosure statement Ex. PW 5/ E was also recorded.
18. PW6 further testified that thereafter they along with accused Kishan @ Keshav proceeded towards his house at Rajiv Nagar and raided his house vide memo Ex. PW 5/ A. On 29.06.2011, he took the exhibits with sample seal from MHC(M) to Forgery Detection Cell, currency notes press Nasik vide RC No.99/22/1 and on 01.07.2011, the exhibits were deposited with the Cell at Nasik and receipt was handed over to MHC(M). He proved the 25 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- each recovered from accused Kishan @ Keshav as Ex. P5 (colly).
19. HC Hari Kishan was examined as PW 8. He testified that on 02.05.201, he was posted as MHC(M) in PS Kashmere Gate. On that day, SI Benkatesh had deposited two jar pulandas sealed with the seal of MS, one envelope duly sealed with the seal of MS along with one pithoo bag in malkhana. He made entry in this regard in register No.19 at serial no. 3376/11 and proved copy of the same as Ex. PW8/A. On 07.05.2011, SI Benkatesh had also deposited one maruti 800 car and one jar pulanda duly sealed with the seal of BK in the malkhana. He made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no.3383/11 (Ex. PW8/B). He further testified that his successor HC Satpal had sent three sealed jar pulandas along with sample seals to FSL, Nasik through Const. Gajender on 29.06.2011. The entry in this regard was Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 13 of 24 14 made in register no.19. Const. Gajender returned to PS on 03.07.2011 and gave an acknowledgment to the then MHC(M) who made entry in the register No. 19 in this regard.
20. Accused Javed in his defence examined Hazi Abdul Aziz as DW 1 who deposed that accused Javed is his daughter's son. He runs his own iron fabrication factory in which accused Javed and his brother Ahmad Ali (DW3) were also working. DW 1 further deposed that he knew Ajay Singh Negi who was SI in the year 2004 and was posted in PS Dilshad Garden as Division Officer of the area. DW-1 had lodged a complaint against his tenants namely Zafar Siddiqui and S.K.Aggarwal for forging documents of his property on the basis of which, FIR No.117/2004 was registered u/s 420/463/466/468/471/34 IPC and the same was investigated by SI Ajay Singh Negi. Since then, he knew Ajay Singh Negi personally and he used to visit his factory regularly to get iron fabrication work done either free of cost or by paying less.
21. DW 1 further deposed that in the month of January 2011, SI Ajay Singh Negi visited his factory and asked to manufacture iron ladder but accused Javed refused to manufacture the same without any advance amount. On this, SI Ajay Singh became annoyed. 2-3 months thereafter, accused Javed left the factory at about 8.30 PM on 30.04.2011 but did not return for the next two days. Subsequently, he came to know that SI Ajay Singh Negi, who was the Chowki Incharge of PP Kashmere Gate had falsely implicated his grand son Javed in the present case.
22. In his cross examination, he admitted to having not lodge any complaint against SI Ajay Singh Negi. He also failed to produce any document to show that accused Javed was working in his factory during the relevant period as claimed by DW1 in his examination in chief.
23. DW 2 Inspector Ajay Singh Negi testified that he was posted as SI in PS Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 14 of 24 15 Dilshad Garden on 07.05.2004 and was also Division Officer of the area of Swami Daya Nand Hospital and adjoining areas. He was the Ist IO of the case FIR No. 117/2004 registered at PS Dilshad Garden in which Haji Abdul AzizDW 1 was the complainant. He further testified that he was posted as Chowki Incharge of PP ISBT, Kashmere Gate on 30.04.2011 as well as 02.05.2011.
24. In his cross examination, he denied having visited the factory of Haji Abdul Aziz/DW1 to get any iron ladder manufacture. He also refuted having any knowledge of accused Javed employed at the factory of DW1/ Haji Abdul Aziz or accused Javed refusing to manufacture iron ladder without any advance.
25. DW 3 Ahmed Ali @ Matru, elder brother of the accused Javed deposed that DW 1 Haji Abdul Aziz is his real maternal grand father and he was residing with him since his childhood. He was illiterate and unable to read and write. He along with accused Javed used to work in the factory of DW-1 and knew SI Ajay Singh Negi as he used to visit the factory for iron fabrication work. He categorically denied his signatures at point X on Ex.PW 1/ F (Arrest Memo of accused Javed).
26. In his cross examination, he reiterated that the signatures at point X on Ex.PW 1/ F were not his.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE.
ACCUSED JAVED:
CONTRADICTIONS
27. The careful scrutiny of the cross-examination of the police witnesses reveal that the deposition of the prosecution witnesses is marred by a number of Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 15 of 24 16 material contradictions which are detailed as follows:-
(i)Arrest Memo of accused Javed-PW-1/ HC Azad Singh in his cross examination testified that the signature of Ahmad Ali (Brother of accused Javed) on the arrest memo Ex.PW1/F was obtained on the next day while PW-5/SI Benkatesh in his testimony stated that the signature of Ahmad Ali on Ex.PW 1/ F was obtained in the police station on the same day i.e 02.05.201 at about 10.45-11.00 PM.
Apart from the aforesaid, the bare perusal of Ex.PW1/F discloses that the alleged signatures/initials of Ahmad Ali, brother of accused Javed have been appended in English, whereas statement of Ahmad Ali as DW-3 was signed in Hindi. In his examination-in-chief as DW-3, he had completely denied his signatures on Ex.PW1/F. During his testimony, Ahmad Ali/DW 3 was asked to append at least 10 signatures on a blank paper. The signature at a mere glance reveal that DW3 could not even form the letters in Hindi, leave alone write anything in English. Rather, the initials appearing on the arrest memo of accused Javed appended in English appear to be in the same handwriting as handwriting alleged to be of SI Benkatesh. During his cross examination, DW 3 also denied that mobile number and residential address mentioned in column no.9 of the arrest memo Ex.PW1/F were his. It is beyond comprehension as to how the arrest memo Ex. PW1/F prepared in the absence of brother of accused Javed could be attested by him. This casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case.
(ii)Disclosure statement of accused Javed- HC Azad Singh/PW1 in his cross examination claimed that the disclosure statement of accused Javed Ex.PW1/H was recorded in the handwriting of SI Benkatesh/PW5 at the spot, whereas PW-5 deposed that he had deposited the case property with the MHC(M) prior to recording of disclosure statement Ex.PW1/H of accused Javed, meaning thereby that the disclosure statement of accused Javed Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 16 of 24 17 was recorded after 11.45 PM in the police station and not at the spot.
(iii) Secret information-HC Azad Singh/PW1 testified that ASI Mahender Singh/PW4 had briefed the raiding party regarding the secret information at PP ISBT Kashmere Gate at about 4.00/4.30 PM in the presence of secret informer. In contradiction to the statement of PW-1, PW-4 had testified that first of all, he had disclosed the information to HC Azad Singh/PW1 and Const. Ved Pal/PW 2 in police post outside the hearing range of the secret informer.
(iv)Search of police party before raid- Const. Ved Pal/ PW 2 in his cross examination testified that at the time of leaving the chowki, IO ASI Mahender/PW4 had conducted the personal search of the members of the raiding party and HC Azad Singh/PW1 had taken the personal search of ASI Mahender Singh/PW4. PW-4/ASI Mahender Singh in his cross examination stated that he had not offered his search to any member of the raiding party before leaving chowki and after receiving information, none of the members of the raiding party were searched by him.
(v)Time of preparation of site plan- PW-1/HC Azad Singh testified that the site plan Ex.PW 5/G was prepared by PW-5 /SI Benkatesh in his presence at about 10.15-10.30 PM while PW2 testified that SI Benkatesh had prepared the site plan at about 9.00PM. PW 4 in his cross examination has stated that the site plan was prepared by SI Benkatesh at about 8.30 PM at the spot at his instance and that he had pointed out the locations of the other members of the raiding party to SI Benkatesh, but he did not know if the same had been shown in the site plan Ex.PW5/G.
(vi) Time taken in writing rukka by ASI Mahender Singh/PW4- PW 1/HC Azad Singh testified that PW-4 took about one hour and forty five minutes in preparing the rukka whereas PW 2/ Const.Ved Pal deposed that PW-4/ Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 17 of 24 18 ASI Mahender Singh had taken only 10 to 15 minutes in preparing the rukka. During the cross examination of PW4, he testified that it had taken about two hours in completing the proceedings and about 20-25 minutes in preparation of rukka.
(vii) Dispatch of the rukka- PW 2/Const. Ved Pal and PW 7/ Const. Sandeep in their examination in chief deposed that after the IO/PW 4/ASI Mahender Singh had prepared the rukka , it was sent for registration of case FIR through HC Azad Singh/PW1 whereas PW-4, the first IO himself had testified that after he had prepared the rukka Ex.PW4/A, it was handed over to Const. Ved Pal/PW2 for taking to Duty Officer for registration of case FIR. PW 4 reiterated this fact again in his cross examination by testifying that Const.Ved Pal/PW2 did not return with FIR at the spot.
(viii) Signal by decoy customer/Const.Ved Pal/PW-2 after the deal between him and accused Javed got over - PW 2/ Const. Ved Pal testified that he had signaled the IO by touching his ear with right hand whereas PW-4/ASI Mahender Singh testified that Const.Ved Pal/PW2 had signaled the raiding party by touching his head with hand in the same position in which he was standing. PW 7/Const.Sandeep completely contradicted both the versions and deposed that Const.Ved Pal/PW2 had signaled the raiding party by raising his right hand in the air.
(ix)Time when the police party left the spot- Const. Ved Pal/PW 2 in his examination in chief testified that SI Benkatesh /PW5 firstly prepared the site plan and investigated the matter, whereafter ASI Mahinder Singh/PW4 left the spot. PW 4/ ASI Mahender Singh testified that after his statement was recorded by SI Benkatesh, he was relieved from the spot. PW 5/ SI Benkatesh in his cross examination stated that he had left the spot at about 10.45 PM and at that time, Const.Ved Pal , HC Azad Singh and Const.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 18 of 24 19 Sandeep were present but ASI Mahinder Singh had left the spot at about 9.15 PM. When PW 7/Const.Sandeep was examined, he deposed that HC Azad Singh/PW 1, ASI Mahender Singh/ PW 4 and he finally left the spot together at about 10.45 PM.
NON INCLUSION OF PUBLIC WITNESSES
28. Apart from the aforesaid contradictions, the evidence of all the material witnesses i.e. members of the raiding team (ASI Mahender Sigh/PW4, Const. Azad Singh/PW1, Const. Ved Pal PW 2and Const. Sandeep/PW7) and second IO SI Benkatesh/PW5 reveal that essential procedural safeguards were not observed by them during investigation. The first and the foremost safeguard being joining independent public witnesses. Strangely, despite the place of occurrence being a a thoroughfare and the time of incident being day time, neither public persons were joined in the investigation nor any notice was given to the public persons who allegedly refused to participate in the investigation relating to the recovery of the alleged fake currency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated the importance of corroboration of evidence of police witnesses by the evidence of public/independent witnesses in such like cases. It is virtually impossible that no members of general public was present at the spot to witness the alleged incident which took place in a public place, in broad day light at an extreme busy place such as the place of incident. In a case titled as Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 744, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that;
"If it was a busy place, the officers would expectedly ask those to be witnesses to the seizure who were present at the time in the place of occurrence. But, not only no such attempt was made, even nobody else who had witnessed the occurrence was made a witness. Even their names and addresses had not been taken".
The non inclusion of independent witnesses thus not only raises a doubt Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 19 of 24 20 regarding the investigation but also regarding the occurrence of the alleged incident and recovery of counterfeit currency from accused Javed especially when the depositions of police officials is interse contradictory.
29. Further, the evidence of the police witnesses also reveals that no efforts were made to apprehend the actual prospective buyer of the counterfeit currency from accused Javed after accused Javed was apprehended at the spot. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Javed had come to the place of occurrence with an intention to sell the counterfeit currency to some prospective buyer who would introduce himself as Kishan. The raiding party, interestingly did not wait for the prospective customer to approach accused Javed so as to apprehend both the accused Javed and the prospective customer together while dealing with each other.
DEPOSIT OF CASE PROPERTY
30. As per the testimony of first IO ASI Mahender Singh/PW4, when SI Benkatesh/PW5 came to the spot on 02.05.2011 after the apprehension of accused Javed, PW-4 handed him over the entire seized property and the accused, whereafter the statement of PW-4 was recorded and he was relieved from the spot. However, this entry of register No.19 (Ex.PW8/A) vide which the case property seized from the accused Javed was deposited, discloses that the case property was deposited by ASI Mahender Singh/PW 4 and not by SI Benkatesh. SI Benkatesh/PW 5 had categorically testified that after the completion of investigation, he had returned to the police station whereafter the accused Javed was sent for medical examination and case property was deposited with the MHC(M) by him. He had also reiterated in his cross examination that he had deposited the case property with MHC(M) prior to the recording of disclosure statement of accused Javed. This contradiction has remained unexplained by the prosecution which casts serious doubt about the recovery itself. It is also Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 20 of 24 21 relevant to mention here that the entry in the Malkhana Register does not bear signature/initial of SHO who is required to do so to lend credence to the entries of Malkhana Register.
DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY THE FIRST AND THE SECOND IO
31. Another startling circumstance which was observed was the fact that the documents Ex.PW1/B , Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW 1/D and Ex.PW1/E which were allegedly prepared by ASI Mahender Singh/PW4 after the apprehension of accused Javed were in same handwriting and same ink from top to bottom. Only the signatures of the witnesses to the documents Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW 1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E were in different handwritings. As per the testimony of PW-4/ASI Mahender Singh, after registration of case FIR, it was SI Benkatesh/PW5, who had put the FIR number on all the documents which were prepared by him i.e ASI Mahender Singh /PW 4 and the same were handed over to SI Banektesh/PW5. The fact that the FIR number mentioned in the aforesaid documents is in the same handwriting and same ink as the entire document completely belies the story of the prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Zofar Vs State reported as Delhi 2000 Cri. L.J 1589 where similar circumstances were observed had held that:
"The number of the FIR (Ex.PW1/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The Prosecution has not offered any explanation whatsoever as to under what circumstances number of the FIR (Ex.PW1/B) has appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot before registration of the FIR. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex.PW!/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the countraband or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
It is also pertinent to mention here that the handwriting in the rukka alleged to have been prepared in the handwriting of PW 4/ASI Mahender Singh is completely different from the handwriting on Ex.PW 1/B, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 21 of 24 22 1/D and Ex.PW 1/E claimed to be also in the handwriting of PW-4 which also casts a serious doubt as to where and who had prepared the said documents.
32. The aforesaid facts observed by this Court cast serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case regarding not only regarding the incident but also about the involvement of accused Javed.
ACCUSED KESHAV :
SEARCH
33. So far as the accused Keshav is concerned, it needs to be highlighted that accused Keshav was to be apprehended on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Javed. The disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW1/H at a mere glance reveals that the first page is not signed by accused Javed. Also, as per Ex.PW1/H, accused Javed had disclosed that he can get accused Kishan arrested on 05.05.2011 from Mangol Puri and that accused Kishan was travelling to Jaipur on 02.05.2011 and would come back to Delhi only on 05.05.2011. The testimony of PW 5/SI Benkatesh reveal that efforts were made by him and PW 6/Const.Gajender to search coaccused Keshav @ Kishan in the area of Mangol Puri, Rohini and ISBT on 05.05.2011. According to him, efforts were again made on 06.05.2011 to search accused Keshav @ Kishan in the area of Mangol Puri, ISBT, Maurice Nagar and Nigam Both Ghat but accused Keshav could not be found. Thereafter, on 07.05.2011, they along with accused Javed had reached Nigam Bodh Ghat, from where accused Keshav was apprehended. It is rather surprising that the searches were made by PW5/ SI Benkatesh and Const. Gajender/PW6 at other places as well besides Mangol Puri when according to the disclosure statement, the accused Keshav was to reach Mangol Puri only on 05.05.2011. No explanation has been given as to how SI Benkatesh learnt that accused Keshav would be found near Nigam Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 22 of 24 23 Bodh Ghat on 07.05.2011 especially when there was no secret information or any information given by accused Javed regarding the presence of accused Keshav near Nigam Bodh Ghat. It will also be useful to mention here that PW 6/ Const. Gajender Singh in his examination in chief had testified that search for accused Keshav was made on 06.04.2011 and 07.04.2011 whereas as per other witnesses it was done on 05.05.11, 06.05.11 and 07.05.11. He also deposed that searches were made at ISBT, GTB Nagar and Metro Station, Tis Hazari. He not even once mentioned that search for accused Keshav was made at Mangolpuri.
OWNERSHIP OF MARUTI VAN
34. Further more, the main IO, SI Benkatesh/PW5 did not make any effort to ascertain the ownership of the maruti car bearing registration no.DL 2CB 6356. As per the showing of SI Benkatesh himself, the maruti car bearing registration no.DL 2CB 6356 from which 21 fake notes of Rs.100/- denomination were recovered at the instance of accused Keshav belonged to one Jyoti. PW 5/SI Benkatesh miserably failed to establish any relationship between accused Keshav and Jyoti. Nothing was also brought on record to show the registration of the maruti car bearing registration no.DL 2CB 6356 in the name of said Jyoti. PW 5 / SI Benkatesh in his cross examination testified that when he had apprehended accused Keshav, he was not in the car and he was standing at the bus stand of Nigam Bodh Ghat. In contradiction to the testimony of PW5, PW 6/Const. Gajender Singh in his cross examination categorically stated that accused Kishan was standing behind the car. If the versions of PW-5 and PW 6 are believed, then, If accused Keshav was standing behind the car or standing at the bus stand of Nigam Bodh Ghat and was not sitting in the maruti car and counterfeit currency was recovered from the van which did not belong to him, he can not be held culpable for possessing the fake currency alleged to have been found in the maruti car.
Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 23 of 24 24
35. The cross examination of PW 5 SI Benkatesh also discloses that according to him accused Keshav was apprehended at about 5.45 AM on 07.05.2011 whereas the time of arrest shown in the Arrest memo Ex.PW 5/A indicates that he was arrested at 7.00 AM and not at 5.45 AM.
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ARREST
36. It is also significant that all the documents relating to accused Keshav i.e Site Plan of the place from where the accused Keshav was allegedly apprehended (Ex.PW5/G), seizure memo of counterfeit currency allegedly recovered from accused Keshav Ex.PW5/A, seizure memo of maruti car bearing registration no. DL 2CB 6356 (Ex.PW5/B), search memo of house No.19 Gali No. E/114, Rajiv Nagar, Delhi (PW5/F) and disclosure statement of accused Keshav are all undated which creates a suspicion regarding the involvement of accused Keshav @ Kishan.
CONCLUSION
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion and appraisal of the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I have therefore, no hesitation to acquit both the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. Both the accused namely Javed and Keshav stand acquitted of the charges punishable U/s 489B/489C IPC. File be consigned to record room.
JUDGMENT SIGNED AND ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT: 21.10.2014 (Hemani Malhotra) ASJ-05 (Central)/THC/Delhi Judgment dt. 21.10.2014 in case FIR No.72/11 State Vs Javed and Others Page No. 24 of 24