Madras High Court
S. Ramaswamy, T.S. Kandasamy, S.V. ... vs State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 5 November, 2001
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The appellants in the above appeals were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 255, 256, 257 and 259 I.P.C. Challenging the same, Ramaswamy (A1) has filed the appeal in C.A. No.3 of 1991, Thirunavukarasu (A2) has filed the appeal in C.A.No.50 of 1991, Kandaswamy (A3) and Subramanian (A5) have filed the appeal in C.A. No.38 of 1991 and Shenbagaraj (A4) has filed the appeal in C.A. No.65 of 1991.
2. Originally along with the appellants, A6 and A7 were tried for various offences and ultimately, the trial Court acquitted A6 and A7 and convicted the appellants alone as under:-
(a) Ramaswamy (A1), the appellant in C.A. 3 of 1991, was convicted for the offences under Sections 255 and 256 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months on each count.
(b) Thirunavukarasu (A2), the appellant in C.A.No.50 of 1991, was convicted for the offences under Sections 256 and 257 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months on each count.
(c) Kandaswamy (A3), the first appellant in C.A. No.38 of 1998, was convicted for the offence under Section 255 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months. Though he was tried for the offence under Section 259 I.P.C., he was acquitted in respect of that charge.
(d) Shenbagaraj (A4), the appellant in C.A.No.65 of 1991, was convicted for the offence under Section 259 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months.
(e) Subramanian (A5), the second appellant in C.A. No.38 of 1991, was convicted for the offence under Section 255 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months.
3. Though all the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., no separate sentence was imposed upon them.
4. The crux of indictment as against the appellants and other accused is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy between 1983 and 1986 to print counterfeit Central Excise stamps to evade Central Excise stamp duty payable on safety match boxes using film negatives and printing plates. In pursuance of the above conspiracy, Ramaswamy (A1), Kandaswamy (A3) and Subramanian (A5) printed counterfeit Central Excise stamps at the Offset Printing Press of Ramaswamy (A1). Thirunavukarasu (A2) facilitated printing of counterfeit Central Excise stamps by providing film negatives of Central Excise band rolls and from these film negatives, printing plates were made for printing counterfeit Central Excise stamps. Subramanian (A5) despatched these Central Excise counterfeit stamps in the names of M/s.Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores through M/s. Southern Roadways Transport Company to various places including Kovilpatti in various trips. Shenbagaraj (A4) took delivery of the counterfeit stamps sent by Subramanian (A5) and concealed the same in a secret place. Thereafter, Shenbagaraj (A4), Raju (A6) and Sannasi (A7) distributed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps to various match factories in and around Kovilpatti.
5. To prove these allegations, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, filed Exs.P-1 to P-134 and marked M.Os.1 to 13.
6. On conclusion of trial, the appellants/accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied their complicity in the crime.
7. On appraisal of evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the appellants in respect of the offences referred to above and acquitted A6 and A7. Hence, these appeals by the appellants (A1 to A5).
8. Mr.S.A.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused, Mr.M.Ravindran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the second accused, Mr.K.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the third and fifth accused and Mr.Paul Vasanthakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth accused would argue at length pointing out various infirmities in the materials relied upon by the prosecution.
9. In reply, Mr.E.Jacob R.Daniel, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. Cases, would contend justifying the reasonings given by the trial Court for imposing conviction and sentence upon the appellants.
10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. Before analysing the merits of the submissions made by either of the parties, it would be worthwhile to refer to the important materials placed by the prosecution before the trial Court, which would reveal the chronological events so that we can have a full picture of the various acts committed by the accused as well as instances involving the efforts taken by the Investigating Officers to collect the materials against the accused. These things are given below in a nutshell.
(a) Mr.Ragothaman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bangalore (P.W.11) was investigating the Crime No.R.C.32 of 1985 relating to fake Indian Airlines tickets printed and sold in the open market. In regard to the said case, P.W.11 searched the premises of Ramaswamy (A1) on 20.2.1986 and seized the materials including the materials which are relevant for this case under Ex.P-31 search list, namely, M.Os.6 to 9 four zinc sheet printing plates containing the matter of Central Excise band roll along with M.O.10 note book containing the entries made by P.W.15 Ravi, an employee of A1 with reference to the printing of counterfeit Central Excise stamps. P.W.9 Inspector, Income Tax Department, witnessed the search. A1 was present and he signed in Ex.P-31 search list.
(b) On knowing the involvement of Kandaswamy (A3) in this case, P.W.11 on 22.2.1986 between 7.00 A.M. and 7.45 A.M. went to the premises of A3 at Royapettah and seized various materials under Ex.P-32 search list. As per the same, Item No.1 in Ex.P-32 relates to six sheets of Central Excise band rolls and the same were marked as M.O.12 series. Item No.2 relates to cash memo sales books of M/s. Orient Paper Mart, Madras and the same was marked as Ex.P-65. Item No.3 in Ex.P-32 is the cash bill book of M/s.Rose Paper Stores, Madras and the same was marked as Ex.P-66. A3 was present throughout the search and he signed in Ex.P-32 in the presence of P.W.10 Senior Personnel Officer, Indian Airlines.
(c) On further information that Thirunavukarasu (A2) is also involved in the crime, on the same day, i.e., 22.2.1986, P.W.11 searched the office premises of Thirunavukarasu (A2) at Madras-1 between 7.50 A.M. and 8.30 A.M. Ex.P-33 is the search list. A2 was present. Item No.1 in Ex.P-33 is the film negative of Central Excise band roll containing 120 Nos. and the same were marked as M.O.11 series.
(d) On being informed by P.W.11 Deputy Superindent of Police, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bangalore, sent a letter dated 22.2.1986 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Economic Offences Wing, Madras incorporating the details of the seizures made from A1 to A3 and requested for taking action against the accused. The said letter was marked as Ex.P-34. On the strength of Ex.P-34 letter, P.W.24 Baskaran Thambi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, registered a case in Crime No.4 of 1986 against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 and 255 to 259, I.P.C. The F.I.R. Is Ex.P-133.
(e) After registering the F.I.R., P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police interrogated A1 and A3. On coming to know about the involvement of A5 and A7 who are the residents of Kovilpatti, P.W.24 went to Kovilpatti with his team for further investigation.
(f) On 24.2.1986, P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police searched the premises of A5 Subramanian at No.32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti in the presence of P.W.4 Venkataraman, Inspector, Central Excise, Kovilpatti between 7.00 A.M. and 7.30 A.M. Ex.P-15 is the search list. Throughout the search, one Kotteeswaran, brother-in-law of A5 was present. Four items were seized. Item No.2 is the rubber stamp "For Orient Paper Mart, Proprietor" and the same was marked as M.O.5. Item No.1 relates to three inland letters and these were marked as Ex.P-16 series. The first letter was written by A3 to A5 to the residential address of A5 at No.32 Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti. The second letter was also addressed to A5 to the same address. The third letter was written by A5 from Madras to his wife at No.32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti.
(g) On the same day, P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police examined P.Ws.2, 3 and 8 and collected information with regard to taking of delivery of two parcels in gunny bags sent in the name of Kalirajan by A5 and the same was taken delivery by A4 Shenbagaraj. Therefore, P.W.24 on the same day, at 4.30 P.M. arrested A4. On the basis of the confession given by A4, P.W.24, in the presence of P.W.4 Venkataraman, recovered two gunny bags concealed in a secluded place, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P-17. From these two gunny bags (M.Os.1 and 3), yellow and blue colour Central Excise stamps (M.Os.2 and 4) were seized under Ex.P-29 mahazar.
(h) P.W.24 examined P.W.15 Ravi, who was working in the printing press of A1. He stated that on the instruction given by his employer (A1), he printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps with the help of M.Os.6 to 9 zinc sheet printing plates brought by A3 and A5 and after the printing work was over, A3 and A5 packed and took delivery of the same with them. On examination of P.W.15, it was found that the entries in M.O.10 note book, which was seized from A1, were found to be written by P.W.15.
(i) P.W.24 sent these M.Os.6 to 9 zinc sheet printing sheets seized from the premises of A1, M.O.12 Central Excise band rolls seized from the premises of A3, M.O.11 film negatives seized from the office of A2 and M.Os.1 and 3 gunny bags and M.Os.2 and 4 yellow and blue colour Central Excise stamps seized from the premises of A4 for scientific analysis and examination through requisition Ex.P-67 dated 25.3.1986. P.W.20 Lakshminaraynan, an Expert, sent his opinion Ex.P-68 on 29.7.1986 stating that M.Os.6 and 9 printing plates were made from M.O.11 film negatives and M.Os. 2 and 4 yellow and blue colour Central Excise stamps were forged ones and the same were made from M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates.
(j) Ex.P-65 cash memo sales book in the name of Orient Paper Mark was seized from the house of A3 on 22.2.1986 by P.W.11. Ex.P-66 cash bill book of M/s.Rose Paper Stores, Madras was also seized from his premises. P.W.24 examined P.W.18 Accountant working in M/s. Orient Paper Mart, who stated that Ex.P-65 Bill Book did not belong to M/s. Orient Paper Mark. M.O.5, the rubber stamp in the name of M/s. Orient Paper Mark was seized from the house of A5 Subramanian by P.W.24. P.W.18 stated that M.O.5 did not belong to their company and similarly, P.W.24 examined P.W.19, a Partner of M/s.Rose Paper Stores, who stated that Ex.P-66 Bill book in the name of M/s.Rose Paper Stores did not belong to their shop.
(k) P.W.24 examined P.W.17 Manager of Thangam Lodge, Periamet. He stated that during the relevant period, Subramnaian (A5) had stayed in the said lodge. As per the entries made in Exs.P-49 to 64, Subramanian (A5) has given his address as "32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti". Then, P.W.24 examined P.W.21 Purushothaman, who was working in Southern Roadways Transport Company, Chennai. He stated that parcels were sent with Exs.P-69, 71, 73,75, 77, 79, 81, 83, 85,87, 89, 91, 93, 124 and 125 forwarding notes, which contain the handwriting of Subramanian (A5) for having sent the parcels to various places including Kovilpatti. P.W.24 sent these documents for the opinion of Handwriting Expert along with the signature of A5. P.W.22 Handwriting Expert in Ex.P-129 dated 30.6.1986 opined that the forwarding notes were prepared and signed by A5.
12. On the basis of these materials, the prosecution projected its case by stating that A1 to A5 entered into a criminal conspiracy at Madras, Kovilpatti and other places to print the counterfeit Central Excise stamps in the printing press of A1 using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates made from M.O.11 film negatives provided by A2 and despatched the same to various places under the guise of paper bundles sent by M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores, Chennai to evade Central Excise duty on safety match boxes and thereby, they committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 255, 256, 257 and 259 I.P.C.
13. The following factors are brought to light by the prosecution in the present case through various materials.
(a) Ramaswamy (A1), Kandaswamy (A3) and Subramanian (A5) printed counterfeit Central Excise stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates made by M.O.11 film negatives supplied by Thirunavukarasu (A2) through P.W.15 Ravi in the offset printing press of Ramaswamy (A1). M.O.11 film negatives used for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates were seized from the office of A2 under Ex.P-33. After making the printing plates, namely, M.Os.6 to 9, A1 to A3 printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps at the printing press of A1. P.W.15 made entries about the printing work done in M.O.10 note book. M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates and M.O.10 note book were seized from the premises of A1 under Ex.P-31. These factors have been spoken to by P.Ws.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.15 through whom M.Os.6 to 9, M.O.11 and Exs.P-31 to P-33 were marked.
(b) After the collection of the counterfeit Central Excise stamps, A3 and A5 were sending the same in the name of M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores through Southern Roadways, Madras to various places under the guise of paper bundles. P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police on 22.2.1986 recovered Ex.P-65 cash memo sales book in the name of M/s. Orient Paper Mart under Ex.P-32 search list from the house of A3. He also recovered Ex.P-66 cash bill book of M/s.Rose Paper Stores. These exhibits, namely, Exs.P-65 andP-66 seized from the premises of A3, are forged ones. P.W.18 Chellaperumal working as Accountant in M/s. Orient Paper Mart and P.W.19 Viyadut Ali Khan, a Partner of M/s.Rose Paper Stores would speak about Exs.P-65 and P-66 that they are not genuine.
(c) P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of P.W.4 searched the house of A5 at No.32 Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti under Ex.P-15 search list and recovered M.O.5 rubber stamp "For Orient Paper Mart, Proprietor". P.W.24 also seized some letters Ex.P-16 series to show that A5 was permanently residing in the said address. During the course of search made by P.W.24, one Kotteeswaran, brother-in-law of A5, was present. A5 sent the parcels through M/s. Southern Roadways Transport Company through various forwarding notes Exs.P-69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, etc. P.W.21 Purushothaman working in the M/s. Southern Roadways Transport Company would speak about the handing over of the parcels by A5. The handwriting contained in these exhibits was also found to be the handwriting of A5 as per Ex.P-129 opinion given by P.W.22 Handwriting Expert.
(d) P.W.17 Satyam, Manager of Thangam Lodge, Periamet identified the entries made in Exs.P-49 to 64 Lodge Attendance Registers and stated that A5 came and stayed in the lodge during the relevant period and he had given his address as "No.32, Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti".
(e) Using Ex.P-12 lorry receipt, A5 sent two gunny bags addressed to Kalirajan, Kovilpatti under the guise of paper bundles. These gunny bags were taken delivery from P.W.2 Thirumalai Kumar, a Clerk working in TVS Lorry booking office at Kovilpatti, by Shenbagaraj (A4). A4 signed on the back of Ex.P-12 lorry receipt as Kalirajan. P.W.8 on behalf of A4 took delivery of these gunny bags on the basis of the signature of A4 in Ex.P-12. On 24.2.2986, P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police arrested A4 and obtained his confession. Then, he identified the gunny bags containing the counterfeit Central Excise stamps concealed near his house. The admissible portion of his confession is Ex.P-17. M.Os.1 to 4 were recovered under Ex.P-29 mahazar in the presence of P.W.4. M.Os.1 and 3 are the gunny bags and M.Os.2 and 4 are the yellow and blue colour counterfeit Central Excise stamps.
(f) After recovery, P.W.24 sent Ex.P-67 requisition to P.W.20 Expert forwarding the said M.Os. for scientific analysis and examination. P.W.20 Expert, after examination, gave Ex.P-68 opinion on 29.7.1986 stating that M.Os.2 and 4 the yellow and blue colour Central Excise stamps were the counterfeit Central Excise stamps and these counterfeit stamps were printed by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates made from M.O.11 film negatives.
14. In the light of the above materials, it is contended by the prosecution that the conviction imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is justified.
15. Let us now discuss the various points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.
16. The contentions of Mr.S.A.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused, are as follows:- "The evidence of P.W.9 mahazar witness, P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police and P.W.15 Ravi, an employee of A1, are not sufficient to base the conviction against A1. P.W.15, though was working for some time in the printing press of A1, left the service and when he came back again requesting for job, the same was denied. Therefore, he was inimical towards the first accused. He was not able to state exactly as to how many times A3 and A5 visited the press. He stated that M.Os.6 to 9 were aluminium plates, whereas P.Ws.9 and 11 would state that they were zinc sheets. Admittedly, M.Os.6 to 9 were not seized when they were actually used. Even assuming that M.Os.6 to 9 were seized from the press of A1, there is no evidence to show that the accused had knowledge about these plates and that there were attending materials used for printing the forged labels."
17. These contentions, in my view, do not merit acceptance, in view of the materials available as against the first accused in abundance. The evidence of P.W.15, who was the employee of the first accused, is so natural and inspiring. According to him, after seizure of the materials, the press was closed and therefore, he did not get job from A1. Under those circumstances, it cannot be concluded that P.W.15 is inimical towards the first accused.
18. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.15 is fully corroborated by the other materials. According to him, under the instructions of A1, he was printing the counterfeit Central Excise stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates, which were brought by A3 and A5. Though the normal working hours of the press is only morning to evening, P.W.15 was asked to do the said work in the night hours between 8.00 P.M. and 3.00 A.M. The work done was entered in M.O.10 note book by P.W.15. This was seized by P.W.11 under Ex.P-31 search list, which was signed by A1. The recovery of these M.Os. Was spoken to by P.W.9 mahazar witness, who is an Income Tax Officer.
19. Furthermore, there is no suggestion put to P.W.11 that the signature was obtained from A1 out of threat or coercion. Moreover, P.W.20 Expert would state that the counterfeit stamps (M.Os.2 and 4) were printed by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates, which were recovered from the premises of A1.
20. In the absence of any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.15, which is corroborated by other materials, it is clear that A1, in pursuance of the conspiracy, allowed A3 and A5 to print the counterfeit Central Excise stamps in his press.
21. In view of the above, the conviction imposed upon the first accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 255 and 256 I.P.C. is correct.
22. Now, let us consider the submissions made by Mr.M.Ravindran, the learned senior counsel appearing for the second accused. The following are his submissions:- "The case against A2 rests on the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 only. The search on the premises of A2 was conducted on 22.2.1986. Prior to the search, P.W.11 conducted search in the house of A3. Even without any statement from A3 implicating A2, there is no reason as to why P.W.11 came to the house of A2 on the very same day, that too, without obtaining any search warrant. The first search was conducted on 20.2.1986 in the house of A1. P.W.11 did not take any steps for two days for obtaining search warrant. The search witness P.W.10 is not an independent witness. Admittedly, the house of A2 was situate in a crowded locality. P.W.11 did not call for two respectful inhabitants for witnessing the search. This is in violation of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. There are contradictions with regard to the place of search and the number of articles seized. According to P.W.10, six articles were seized under Ex.P-33 from the Thozhirkoodam of A2. But, in Ex.P-33 search list, it is stated that 8 articles were seized at 1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street. There is no evidence with reference to the location of the Thozhirkoodam. The evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 are contradictory with each other with reference to the number of articles seized. Though the search was conducted on 22.2.1986 revealing the involvement of A2, there is no explanation as to why A2 was arrested six days later (i.e.) on 28.2.1986. In the fake Indian Airlinestickets case in Crime No.32 of 1985, A2 refused to give evidence as witness and therefore, he has been implicated falsely in this case."
23. The second accused has been convicted for the offences under Sections 120B, 256 and 257 I.P.C. Section 256 I.P.C. relates to possession of instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp. Section 257 I.P.C. refersto the making of the said instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp.
24. According to P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police, he searched the premises of A2 in the presence of P.W.10 Indian Airlines Officer and recovered M.O.11 film negatives containing 120 Central Excise band rolls under Ex.P-33 search list. According to P.Ws.10 and 11, A2 was present throughout the search and he signed in Ex.P-33 search list and received the copy.
25. As per Ex.P-68 opinion given by P.W.20 Expert, M.O.11 film negatives, which were recovered from the premises of A2, were used for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates through which M.Os.2 and 4 yellow and blue colour counterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed.
26. According to the prosecution, P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bangalore, came to Madras for investigating the case in Crime No.32 of 1985 relating to printing of fake Indian Airlines tickets. On 20.2.1986, he searched the premises of A1 and on 22.2.1986, he searched the premises of A3 and A2 and recovered incriminating materials from the premises of all the three accused.
27. The connecting link has been brought to light through the opinion of P.W.20 Expert that M.O.11 film negatives recovered from the premises of A2 were the source for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates through which M.Os.2 and 4 counterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.11 film negatives from the premises of A2 assumes much significance.
28. It is true that P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police did not obtain search warrant from the Court concerned before searching the premises of A1 to A3. This is admitted by P.W.11 himself in the cross-examination. However, P.W.11 would state that before searching the premises, he sent advance intimation to the Court concerned. This is not challenged in the cross-examination.
29. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.11 that after recovering the materials from the house of A1 under Ex.P-31 search list, from the premises of A3 under Ex.P-32 search list and from the premises of A2 under Ex.P-33 search list, the properties involved in this case were sent to the Court concerned. In view of the compliance of the provision of Section 165 Cr.P.C., it cannot be contended that the search conducted in the premises of A1 to A3 without search warrant is illegal.
30. It is argued that two independent and respectful inhabitants from the locality were not summoned to witness the search and as such, it is in violation of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C.
31. In the present case, P.W.10 K.R.Narayanan is the mahazar witness. He is the resident of No.54 N.C.Colony, Chennai-61. As per Ex.P-33, the search was conducted at No.1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street, Madras-14. P.W.10 was working as Senior Personnel Officer, Indian Airlines. According to him, he was the witness for the first time for the search which was conducted in the premises of A2 on 22.2.1986. Under those circumstances, merely because the witnesses from the same street were not called, it cannot be said that P.W.10 is not a local, respectful and independent witness.
32. Ex.P-33 would prove the incriminating materials. Items 1 to 18 were seized from the office of A2. Some of the items were seized from the drawer of the office table kept in the front room, some of the items were seized from the office room and some other items were seized from the property room. It only shows that all the properties have been seized only in the same premises from different rooms in the same address, namely, No.1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street. It is shown in Column No.4 that the house and office address of A2 is No.1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street.
33. It is also noticed from Ex.P-33 search list that apart from M.O.11 film negatives, various film negatives of currency notes, Thiruvallur Transport Corporation tickets and aluminium plates containing the matter of Entry Tickets of International Airport Authority of India were recovered from the premises of A2. This shows that P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police was able to recover other properties also, while conducting search on the premises of A2 in a case relating to fake Indian Airlines tickets. But, those things has not been marked in this case as they would relate to some other case.
34. In Ex.P-33 search list itself, it is mentioned in Column No.6 that the search was conducted under Section 165 Cr.P.C. After observing all the legal formalities, in Column No.7, it is stated that Thirunavukarasu (A2) was present throughout the search and no damage or injury was caused to the person or property during the search.
35. It is seen from Ex.P-33 search list that below the signatures of P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police and one Ramaraj, Inspector of Police, CBI, Madras, P.W.10 K.R.Narayanan, Senior Personnel Officer, Indian Airlines and one Rudramurthy, Superintendent, Indian Airlines signed in Ex.P-33. The second accused also put his signature endorsing that he received the copy of Ex.P-33 search list.
36. So, the evidence of P.W.11 and P.W.10 would clearly show that the search was conducted in the premises of A2 at No.1-A Angamuthu Naicken Street in the office room and the property room and 18 items of which M.O.11 is the film negatives were recovered and during the search, A2 was present. No suggestion was put either to P.W.10 or to P.W.11 to the effect that his signature in Ex.P-33 was obtained by the C.B.I. police out of coercion or threat.
37. Only in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the second accused stated that he was detained by the C.B.I. police on 20.2.1986 and in the C.B.I. office, his signatures were obtained in white papers and that he had no knowledge about the search conducted in his premises. This defence has been pleaded belatedly by the second accused only at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no such suggesion was put to the witnesses concerned, namely, P.Ws.10 and 11. Furthermore, it is not the case of A2 that he complained to the Judicial Magistrate concerned, who remanded him to custody on 28.2.1986, regarding his illegal custody from 20.2.1986 to 28.2.1986.
38. It is further contended on behalf of A2 that there is no explanation by P.W.11 as to how A2 was traced. This submission lacks substance. According to P.W.11, he conducted search in the premises of A1 on 20.2.1986 and on information, he went to the house of A3 on 22.2.1986 in the morning and conducted search in the house of A3. On getting further information, he straightaway came to the house of A2 and conducted search in the premises of A2 in the presence of A2 and recovered M.O.11 film negatives and other incriminating materials relating to other cases.
39. It is the specific evidence of P.W.11 that he came to know through the search conducted on 20.2.1986 and 22.2.1986 that A1 to A3 were clandestinely printing the counterfeit Central Excise stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates prepared through M.O.11 negative films and accordingly, he sent a report on 22.2.1986 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bangalore who in turn sent Ex.P-34 letter dated 22.2.1986 to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Economic Wings, Madras mentioning these facts and requesting him to take further action in this matter. On receipt of the same, P.W.24 Baskaran Thambi, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, was directed to register a case and take action on Ex.P-34 report. In the said report, it is mentioned that A3 gave information to P.W.11 that Ex.P11 film negatives of Central Excise band rolls were available with A2, who was helping him to prepare M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates from the said M.O.11 film negatives. So, the source of information, as pointed out by P.W.11, was also mentioned in Ex.P-34. Therefore, this contention also fails.
40. The mere admission by P.W.11 in the cross-examination that he did not record any confession from A1 and A3 would not mean that P.W.11 did not get any information from A3 regarding M.O.11 film negatives available with A2. The earliest documents Ex.P-31 search list prepared in the premises of A1, Ex.P-32 search list prepared in the premises of A3 and Ex.P-33 search list prepared in the premises of A2 have been clearly mentioned in Ex.P-34 letter sent by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Economic Offence Wing, Madras. Therefore, none of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the second accused would merit acceptance.
41. As indicated above, the evidence of P.W.20 Expert is giving a connecting link for establishing the acts committed by the accused in pursuance of the conspiracy. According to him, M.O.11 film negatives were used for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates through which M.Os.2 and 4 counterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed and the opinion of P.W.20 Expert is Ex.P-68. This is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.15, who printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps on the instruction of A1 in the presence of A3 and A5.
42. When it is the specific evidence of P.W.20 Expert that M.O.11 film negatives were used for making M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates, no suggestion was put to him that the said M.O.11 film negatives were not used. It is suggested to P.W.10 that he was afraid of C.B.I., since he was involved in the fake Indian Airlines tickets case. There is no basis for such suggestion, which was correctly denied by P.W.10. P.W.10 was a responsible Officer working as Senior Personnel Officer in Indian Airlines. There is no necessity for him to speak falsehood against A2 to the effect that M.O.11 film negatives were seized from the premises of A2 in his presence.
43. As noted above, the signature of the second accused in Ex.P-33 search list has not been disputed. A perusal of Ex.P-33 would not show that the signature of A2 was obtained only in blank white papers. Ex.P-33 shows that it is a printed matter covering several pages in which the signature of the second accused was obtained in the last column.
44. Under these circumstances, the conviction imposed upon the second accused for the offences under Sections 120-B, 256 and 257 I.P.C. is correct.
45. It would now be appropriate to refer about the materials against both A3 and A5, as the prosecution has placed common materials to prove the offence as against these accused.
46. The learned counsel for the third accused has submitted the following contentions:- "Though the third accused was acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 259 I.P.C., he was convicted under Sections 120-B and 255 I.P.C. on the basis of insufficient materials. The implication of A3 is based on the information given by A1. But, P.W.11 Deputy Superintendent of Police did not record any confession statement either from A1 or A3. The presence of A3 during the search was doubtful, since P.W.10 did not tell P.W.24 Investigating Officer that A3 was present. According to P.W.11, A3 was arrested by him on 22.2.1986, whereas P.W.10 stated that he did not know about the same. On the other hand, P.W.24 would state that A3 was not arrested on 22.2.1986 and he was arrested only on 28.2.1986. In Ex.P-34, there is no mention about the presence of P.W.10 during the search. According to P.W.10, the third accused signed Ex.P-32 search list only once. But, Ex.P-32 contains the signature of A3 in Tamil and also in English. Therefore, P.W.10 could not have been present during the search. The evidence of P.W.15 was not reliable as there is no material to prove as to how P.W.15 was traced by the prosecution. P.W.13 would state that five years back A3 placed orders for M.O.5 rubber stamp and took delivery of the same. P.W.13 further stated that he told P.W.24 that he knew A3 only in that context. No such statement was made by P.W.24."
47. The learned counsel for the fifth accused has made the following submission:- "The alleged recovery of M.O.10 note book was made from the premises of A1 on 22.2.1986. According to prosecution, this would relate to the entries made by P.W.15 regarding the printing work done to A3 and A5 in the press of A1. If really M.O.10 had been recovered on 22.2.1986, there is no reason as to why the name of A5 was not mentioned in Ex.P-34. While the search was conducted at No.32 Soundarapandian Street Kovilpatti, A5 was not present. Ex.P-15 series inland letters do not contain any incriminating substance. Admittedly, the house in which the search was conducted did not belong to A5. P.W.15 is an accomplice. Ex.P-129 opinion given by P.W.22 Handwriting Expert as against A5 has not been corroborated."
48. A3 and A5 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 255 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, A1, A3 and A5 printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps at the Offset Printing Press of A1. P.W.15 would state that A1 and A5 brought M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates and by using the same, the counterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed by him at the press of A1 on the instruction of A1 during the night hours in the presence of A3 and A5 and after the printing was over, they packed and took the same with them. P.W.15 had made entries regarding the work done in M.O.10 note book. These entries would show that A3 and A5 printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps in the printing press of A1.
49. As noted above, as per the opinion of P.W.20 Expert M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates were used for printing the counterfeit Central Excise stamps. On 22.2.1986, the search was conducted in the house of A3 by P.W.11 in the presence of P.W.10 and M.O.12 series Central Excise band rolls were recovered from him and the same were found to be genuine. Ex.P-65 cash memo sales book relating to Orient Paper Mart and Ex.P-66 cash bill book relating to Rose Paper Stores were recovered from the premises of A3. Since M.O.12 series Central Excise band rolls were found to be genuine, as per the opinion given by P.W.20 Expert, A3 was acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 259 I.P.C.
50. As stated above, P.W.15 would speak about the role of A3 and A5. After collecting the counterfeit Central Excise stamps printed, A5 sent the parcels through M/s. Southern Roadways Company as if M/s. Orient Paper Mart and Rose Paper Stores were the despatchers.
51. P.W.18 Chellaperumal, who was working as Accountant in M/s. Orient Paper Mart during the relevant period, deposed that Ex.P-65 cash memo sales book seized from the premises of A3 did not belong to M/s. Orient Paper Mart. He also stated that M.O.5 rubber stamp in the name M/s. Orient Paper Mart recovered from the house of A5 did not belong to M/s. Orient Paper Mart. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.P-65 and M.O.5 in the name of M/s. Orient Paper Mart were got prepared by A3 and A5 to despatch the counterfeit Central Excise stamps from Madras to various places under the guise of paper bundles.
52. Similarly, P.W.19 Vidyadut Ali Khan, who was a Partner in M/s.Rose Paper Stores, would state that Ex.P-66 cash bill book in the name of M/s.Rose Paper Stores, which was seized from the house of A3, did not belong to M/s.Rose Paper Stores.
53. These things would show that A3 and A5 went to press of A1 and with the help of P.W.15 printed counterfeit Central Excise stamps and despatched the same to various places by using Exs.P-65 and P-66 forged bill books of M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores which were recovered from the house of A3 and by using M.O.5 forged rubber stamp of M/s. Orient Paper Mart which was recovered from the house of A5.
54. It is true that A5 was not present at Door No.32 Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti, when the search was conducted. But, one Kotteeswaran, the brother-in-law of A5, was present during the course of search. According to P.W.4, the mahazar witness, M.O.5 rubber stamp "for Orient Paper Mart, Proprietor" was recovered from the house of A5 at No.32 Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti. P.W.24 seized Ex.P-16 series letters, which would show that though the said house belonged to Kotteeswaran, the brother-in-law of A5, A5 was presently residing in the said address and receiving these letters.
55. P.W.24, the Investigating Officer, would state that during the course of search in the house of A5, the said Kotteeswaran was present and he also signed in Ex.P-15 search list. The first letter was written by A3 to A5 to the said address. The second letter was also addressed to A5 to the said address. The third letter was sent by A5 himself to his wife to the same address from Madras. Therefore, it cannot be contended that A5 was not residing in the place where the search was conducted by P.W.24 in the presence of P.W.4.
56. Further, it has been established through P.W.22 Handwriting Expert that the said letters were written by A3 to A5 to the said address. There is no challenge either by A3 or by A5 that the said letters were not written by A3 to A5 or Kotteeswaran, who signed during the course of search, was not his brother-in-law. Moreover, the acquittal of A3 in respect of the offence under Section 259 I.P.C. would not have any bearing with reference to the conviction under Section 255 I.P.C.
57. According to prosecution, after collection of these stamps printed, A5 sent the parcels to various parties through M/s. Southern Roadways Company as if M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores were the despatchers. P.W.21, the employee of M/s. Southern Roadways Company would produce Exs.P-69 to P-71 forwarding notes signed by the sender on behalf of M/s. Orient Paper Mart. P.W.18, who was working in M/s. Orient Paper Mart, would state that no such forwarding notes were sent by them. On the other hand, Ex.P-129 opinion given by P.W.22 Handwriting Expert would show that the said writings were made by A5. Admittedly, A5 has no connection with M/s. Orient Paper Mart.
58. As noted above, as spoken to by P.Ws.4 and 24, M.O.5 was recovered from the house of A5. That apart, P.W.17, the Manager of Thangam Lodge, Periamet, would speak that during the relevant period, A5 stayed in the said lodge and through him, Exs.P-49 to P-64 were marked. In these documents, A5 Subramaniam had given his address as No.32 Soundarapandian Street, Kovilpatti and the same had been written by A5 himself. Apart from that, A5 sent two gunny bag parcels addressed to Kalirajan, Kovilpatti under the guise of paper bundles by using Ex.P-12 lorry receipt.
59. As noted above, P.W.15 would adduce evidence to the effect that A3 and A5 came to the press of A1 and printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps by using M.O.6 to 9 printing plates. According to him, after the printing work was over, A3 and A5 used to leave M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates in the press itself and destroyed the waste.
60. P.W.15 cannot be considered to be an accomplice, as there is no material to show that he knew that they were committing some offence. According to him, as an employee under A1, he carried out the instruction of A1 by printing the stamps by using M.Os.6 to 9 and he made entries in respect of the said work in M.O.10 note book.
61. It may be true that A5's name was not mentioned in Ex.P-34. The reason is obvious. P.W.15 was traced only later. The search conducted in the house of A1 to A3 by P.W.11 had revealed the involvement of A1 to A3 alone at that stage. Once P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation, he was able to spread the net and find out the involvement of other accused also. Therefore, the non-inclusion of A5 in Ex.P-34 would not in any way help the case of the defence.
62. On the other hand, as discussed above, the evidence of P.W.15, P.W.4, P.W.24, P.W.17, P.W.18 and P.W.19 and the materials recovered from the house of A3 and A5 would clearly show that both A3 and A5, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with others, printed the counterfeit Central Excise stamps and distributed the same to various places in the name of M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores under the guise of paper bundles.
63. These materials would show that the evidence of P.W.15 as against A3 and A5 has been substantially corroborated by the other oral and documentary evidence. Consequently, it has to be held that the conviction imposed upon A3 and A5 for the offences under Sections 120-B and 255 I.P.C. are liable to be confirmed.
64. Let us now come to the case of A4.
65. The learned counsel for A4, by adopting the arguments advanced by A3 and A5, would submit that the conviction imposed on A4 merely on the evidence of P.W.1, who is an approver, cannot be sustained, as the materials available on record would not be sufficient to convict A4 for the offences under Section 120-B and 259 I.P.C.
66. Section 259 I.P.C. provides possession of counterfeit Government stamp. According to prosecution, A4 took delivery of the parcels containing the counterfeit Central Excise stamps sent by A5, which were distributed through P.W.1 to various factories. The evidence of P.W.1, an approver, would show that on the request made by A4, he worked in several safety match factories and used to remove the genuine band rolls and replace them with the counterfeit band rolls given by A4. He would also state that on the instruction of A4, he used to take delivery of the band rolls.
67. Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.8 would show that at the instance of A4, he took delivery of the band roll parcels under Exs.P-124 and P-125. This is addressed as Kalirajan, Kovilpatti in Exs.P-124 and P-125. The addressee was mentioned as Kalirajan, No.125 Main Road, Kovilpatti. P.W.7 Inbaraj would state that no such person was available in the premises at No.125 Main Road, Kovilpatti.
68. P.W.2 Thirumalaikumar, who was working in TVS Lorry Booking office at Kovilpatti, would state that on 22.2.1986, A4 Shenbagaraj visited his office with Ex.P-12 and took delivery of two gunny bag parcels sent in the name of Kalirajan. On the back of Ex.P-12 lorry receipt, A4 Shenbagaraj signed and took delivery of the said two gunny bag parcels coming in the name of Kalirajan. P.W.8 N.Shenbagaraj also would corroborate the statement of P.W.2.
69. According to prosecution, though the evidence of P.W.2, who was working in TVS Lorry Booking Office, Kovilpatti, two gunny bag parcels in the name of Kalirajan was taken delivery by A4 and P.W.8 and they were kept concealed near his house. On the basis of the statement of these witnesses, on 24.2.1986, P.W.24 Deputy Superintendent of Police arrested A4 in the presence of P.W.4 Inspector of Central Excise, Kovilpatti. A4 gave a confession to the effect that he took delivery of the counterfeit Central Excise stamps sent in the name of Kalirajan by A5 from Madras. The admissible portion of his confession is marked as Ex.P-17. He would also point out the place where the parcels were kept concealed. Accordingly, P.W.24 and other officials were taken to a secluded place near his house and M.Os. 1 and 3 two gunny bags and M.Os.2 and 4 yellow and blue colour Central Excise stamps were seized in the presence of P.W.4 under Ex.P-29 recovery mahazar. The gunnybags also contained the address of Kalirajan, Kovilpatti. P.W.24 sent M.Os.2 and 4 along with other articles for analysis. P.W.20 Analyst submitted Ex.P-68 opinion to the effect that M.Os.2 and 4 Central Excise stamps were counterfeit stamps and the same were printed with the use of M.Os.6 to 9 printing plates.
70. The evidence of P.W.22 Handwriting Expert would show that the handwriting in Ex.P-12 was made by A4. As such, the participation of A4 has been clearly established by the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.4, P.W.24 and by Ex.P-12, P-17, P-29 and M.Os.1 to 4. P.W.1 approver would also speak about the fact that A4 used to remove the genuine band rolls and replace them with the counterfeit band rolls.
71. In the light of these materials, it cannot be said that there is no sufficient material. The whole reading of the evidence, both oral and documentary, would clearly show that A1 to A5 were the parties to the conspiracy and each one of them had played an important role in execution of the said conspiracy and as a result of this, the counterfeit Central Excise stamps were printed at the press of A1 by A3 and A5 through M.O.11 film negatives supplied by A2, and A3 and A5 sent the same to A4 under the guise of paper bundles, as if M/s. Orient Paper Mart and M/s.Rose Paper Stores were the despatchers and after receiving the parcels, A4 distributed one portion of the counterfeit Central Excise stamps to various safety match factories and kept concealed the other portion in his house.
72. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has established the offences for which the accused have been convicted and as such, there is no reason to hold that the findings with regard to conviction and the reasonings for those findings given by the trial Court are not justified.
73. Therefore, these appeals have no merits and consequently, the same are liable to be dismissed.
74. In the result, these appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants (A1 to A5) by the trial Court are confirmed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence.