Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Saleem Noor Mohd. on 9 February, 2011

       IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
    ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
              (New Delhi & South East District)
           PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

SC No.35/10
FIR No.01/06
U/s 364A/419/468A  IPC
PS Chankyapuri

State 

Vs.

Saleem Noor Mohd. Sayeed @ Munna
S/o Noor Mohd. @ Bhaiya
R/o VPO Sami Opp Panchayat Ghar
Bus Stand Road
District Patan PS Sami, Gujarat
                                                                    .......... Accused 

Challan filed on : 29.03.06
Received by Fast Track Court on:08.10.2010
Reserved for Order on : 20.01.2011
Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2011

JUDGMENT

Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.10.2005 one Manmohan Gupta had given complaint in PS Model Town vide DD no.22A stating therein that his brother in law (jijaji) Sh Ram Avtar Bansal s/o Late Sh Ram Bansal r/o 207 Kalyan Vihar, State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Delhi proceeded to Behrain on 10.10.05 through Gulf Airways Flight and he could not contact him thereafter and his mobile no. 9811076830 is also switched off. Sh Ram Avtar Bansal has to return back on 13.10.05. Thereafter one similar complaint was made to DCP Crime in which he has stated additionally that his brother in law has gone to Mr.Malik (businessman) mobile no. 0097336314623 who was introduced by one Jaipur based businessman Puran mobile no. 9829069412. On 11.10.05 in the evening at about 8.30 p.m one phone call was received by Rakesh Bansal on his mobile no. 9810347760 from mobile no. 0097336615832 and he was asked to arrange Rs. 50.00 lacs. Rakesh Bansal casted doubt since business transaction used to be through bank and he asked his brother as to whether he is in trouble or not and he replied 'yes'. The talks were continued and at last they have asked to arrange Rs.20.00 lac. He suspects that his brother in law has been apprehended by the wrong peoples and the same may kindly be investigated. Leaving the country was confirmed by FRRO. On 13.10.05 after taking Rs.9.50 lacs through hawala Ram Avtar Bansal was released. Thereafter he made complaint at Behrain Airport regarding his abduction. It was informed that Nazir Malik abducted him with the help of his associates. His belongings were taken by them. It was informed that Malik Nazir Miya Hussain had come to State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

India and Interpole gave the information on email. On 30.12.05 Malik Nazir Miya Hussain was detained at Mumbai Airport alongwith passport no. E­6569874 while going to Gulf and brought to Delhi. He was interrogated and disclosed his original name as Saleem Noor Mohd. @ Munna @ Nazir Miyan Hussain Miyan Malik . He was arrested on identification by complainant Ram Avtar Bansal.The investigation was done and after completing the investigation, challan was filed in the court.

2. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received by the court of sessions on 29.04.06.

3. The charge against the accused Salim Noor Mohd. Sahid @ Munna @ Nazir Miran has been framed u/s 364A/468/471/34 IPC on 12.10.06 by Sh Vinod Kumar, Ld. ASJ to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 19 witnesses.

State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

5. The evidence against the accused has been put to him in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he has pleaded his innocence and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.

6. I have heard the Ld.counsel for the accused as well as Ld.APP for the State and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.

7. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld.APP and Ld.counsel on behalf of the accused I have perused the testimonies of all the PWS.

8. PW1 Ram Avtar Bansal is the victim and he has deposed about the incident.

9. PW2 Rakesh Kumar is the brother of complainant and he is the person who received ransom call from the accused persons.

10. PW3 Pooran Sharma @ Kalwari is the witness who knows Nazir Malik and he introduced Ram Avtar with Nazir Malik. State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

11. PW4 R.K.Singh is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd and he has produced the call details Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B.

12. PW5 Umesh has deposed that he is running mobile service and accused has sold him mobile phone 7610 in Oct. 2005 for Rs. 9500/­ and accused purchased mobile phone 1100 for Rs.2500/­. Police reached at his shop on 3.1.2006 alongwith accused and asked about mobile phone 7610. He handed over the said mobile and it was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He identified the phone Ex.P4.

13. PW6 ASI Dharambir has deposed that on 1.1.06 rukka was produced by HC Chiranji Lal on which basis he recorded FIR, copy of which is Ex.PW6/A.

14. PW7 SI Jamesh Kujoor has deposed that on 12.10.05 he has recorded informed given by Mohan Singh in DD no.22A that his Jija Ram Avtar Bansal had gone to Behrain and no contact is possible now.

State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

15. PW8 Nazir Miyan Hussain Miyan Malik has deposed that he is working in Cuffeprade, Kolaba. His passport is Ex.PW8/A but the photo affixed on it is not of him. He had given this passport to one Farukh who assured that he will send him to abroad and asked for Rs. 25,000/­. Visa was given to him after 8 days and assured that he will send after 15 days to Kuwait. After 15 days that person telephoned him and asked to reach at Mumbai Airport alongwith Rs.15,000/­He also requested him for ticket and passport. But he did not come back. The passport Ex.PW8/A is having the photograph of accused. Another passport no. E6569874 is the fake passport. He had given the passport to the accused after two years after the issue of his passport. Initially accused present in the court told his name to him as Farukh.

16. PW9 Devak Ram is the witness from FSL and he examined the documents and given his report which is Ex.PW9/A.

17. PW10 Manmohan Gupta is the person who got recorded DD that his brother in law (jija) had gone to Behrain and now no contact could be established with him. He has deposed about paying of Rs.9.50 lacs on 13.10.05 He made complaint to DCP which is Ex.PW10/A with copy of SHO is Ex.PW10/B. His brother in law was State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

released by the detainer and thereafter he came to India and informed him in detail.

18. PW11 Ct. Ghanshyam has deposed that on 10.01.2006 Ram Avtar Bansal came to their office in Chankyapuri and met SI Manjeet and produced Air ticket Mobile phone bearing no. 981107680 and 9810347707. These documents were seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A.

19. PW12 SI Ramesh Dabas has deposed that on 01.01.06 he was posted at ISC/Crime Branch and on receiving information from AFRRO, Mumbai he alongwith SI Manjeet went to Sahar Police Station where accused Nazir Mian Hussain Mian Malik was detained u/s 41.1 (g) Cr.PC. They took the said person to Delhi. They had received information from the Interpol Behrain regarding arrest of accused. On interrogation they came to know that original name of accused is Saleem Noor Mohd. And the passport recovered from him was belonging to one known person namely Nazir Mian Malik and from him he obtained the said passport after inducing him and he got affixed his photograph on the passport of Nazir Mian Malik and on the fake passport accused had traveled to Arabian countries. On this State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

information rukka was prepared by SI Manjeet Singh and case was registered. The disclosure statement of accused Saleem Noor Mohd is Ex.PW12/A. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW12/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/C. He has further deposed that on 2.1.06 Rakesh Bansal handed over currency note no. 08R 397091 in denomination of Rs.10/­ and told that he had given Rs. 9,50,000/­ to release his brother from kidnappers after showing the said currency note. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that on 03.01.2006 he alongwith SI Manjeet were taken to Ajmer by accused to the shop of Umesh Store where he had sold mobile phone for Rs.9,500/­ belonging to Ram Avtar Bansal and the nokia phone 7610 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Accused has also pointed out the Hotel Kamal where he stayed after coming from Behrain. The photocopies of guest register are mark PW12/A1 and A2. Accused also took them to Hotel Darbaar Palace Restaurant but record was not available. On 1.1.06 one expired passport in the name of Nazir Mian Hussain, one other passport in the same name issued by Kuwait, one departure card and one air ticket were recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW12/D. Specimen handwriting of accused was obtained on Ex.PW9/C and H. On the same day Ram Avtar identified the accused to be the same person. State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Ram Avtar Bansal identified the accused in Andheri court, Mumbai vide identification memo Ex.PW12/E. He has further stated that accused told them that he stayed in Hariyali Hotel in Udaipur and took the police party to Udaipur the record is Ex.PW12/B. He identified the Rs.10/­ note Ex.P1, Mobile phone Nokia 7610 Ex.P2, passports Ex.PW8/A and A1, departure card Ex.PW9/B, ticket Ex.PW12/Y.

20. PW13 Krishan Kumar has given report that passport no. A­6587082 was issued to Nazir Miya Malik from RPO Ahmedabad. The report is Ex.PW13/A. And PISON report is Ex.PW13/B.

21. PW14 Kamal Mool Chandani is the witness from Kamal Palace Hotel and he has deposed that he had handed over the record of sr.no. 390 to Police on which accused Saleem Noor Mohd has stayed. The entry is Ex.PW14/1.

22. PW15 SI ND Chaudhary is the witness from PS Sami District Banaskatha, Gujarat and he has deposed that on 4.1.06 he accompanied Delhi Police to the house of Salim Noor Mohd. Situated in village Sami but his associates Habib and Suleman could not be traced. Accused Salim Noor was identified by his brother Yakub Noor State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Mohd. Sayeed and one telephone no. 244337 bill was seized. The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/F and the bill is Ex.PW12/G.

23. PW16 Insp. Subhash Tandon has deposed that he requested Passport Officer to provide particulars of passports of accused vide request letter Ex.PW16/A. Passport office provided photocopies mark A &B. On the basis of this information LOC in the name of Nazir Malik was opened and also asked to provide particulars and copy of disembarkation card. Message is Ex.PW16/B.He requested AFRRO, Delhi to ascertain whether Nazir Malik residence of Behrain had come to Delhi Airport and FRRO sent the arrival card and passport number of the above said person copy of which is mark D. On 12.10.05 he also requested FRRO to ascertain the departure and arrival of victim Ram Avtar Bansal and he received the embarkation card mark E. His request letter is Ex.PW16/D. The request of Inter Pol Behrain to Interpol Delhi is Ex.PW16/E and again LOC was opened against Malik Nazir Hussain Mia. He was detained at Sahar Mumbai Airport. Information was received about his detention and further investigation was conducted by SI Manjeet Singh.

24. PW17 Ct Suresh Kumar has produced the departure details State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

of Ram Avtar and arrival particulars of Mohd. Nazir Miyan Malik which is Ex.PW17/A.

25. PW18 ASI Chiranji Lal has deposed that on 1.1.06 SI Manjeet Singh handed over rukka to him and he got recorded FIR of this case.

26. PW19 SI Manjeet Singh Tomar is the IO of this case and he has deposed that DD no.22A was lodged by Manmohan Gupta regarding Ram Avtar Bansal going to Behrain and not coming back and it was enquired from FRRO. On 13.10.05 associate of accused Salim (Nazir Miya) informed to complainant to arrange Rs.50.00 lac for deal of wax. The mobile of Ram Avtar was off. On enquiry they came to know about its position at Ajmer. After taking the ransom of Rs.9.50 lac Ram Avtar Bansal was released at Behrain and he made complaint to Behrain authorities and Nazir Miyan has taken his mobile phone and other belongings. He came to know that Nazir Miyan had come to India on 12.10.05 after taking mobile phone and money of Ram Avtar Bansal. Complaint made by Ram Avtar to Interpol Behrain was received in Interpol India. On 30.12.05 he received information that Nazir Miyan Hussain Miya holding Indian passport was detained State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

in Mumbai Airport while going to Gulf. He alongwith SI Ramesh Dabas and Ram Avtar Bansal went to Andheri court Mumbai and accused was taken into custody with the permission of court. He was interrogated and his actual name Salim Noor Mohd Sayeed was disclosed by him. He further disclosed that he had taken the passport of Mazir Miya Malik and later on it was altered and fixed his photograph . He prepared rukka Ex.PW19/A and got the case registered. The documents were seized vide memo Ex.PW12/D. The passports are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW12/X, departure embarkation card is Ex.PW19/B, Air ticket is Ex.PW12/Y, specimen handwriting of accused Ex.PW9/C to H were taken. Accused Salim was arrested vide memo Ex.PW12/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/C. Accused Salim made disclosure statement Ex.PW12/A and he disclosed that he can get recovered the mobile phone of Ram Avtar Bansal from Ajmer. On 2.1.06 Rakesh Bansal brother of Ram Avtar Bansal handed over Rs.10/­ bearing no. 08R397091 through which the ransom amount was paid and it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that accused Salim took the police party to Umesh Store at Ajmer and disclosed that he had sold phone of Victim make 7610 to Umesh Ram Chandani and purchased another mobile 1100 NOKIA from him for Rs.2500/­ and State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

taken Rs.7000/­ in cash. The phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He has further stated that he took the photocopy of hotel Kamal which is EX.PW14/A. He obtained the copy of register of hotel Darbar and Hotel Haryali Palace Ex.PW12/A1 and B1. Accused was identified by his brother Yakoob vide memo Ex.PW12/G. Thereafter they reached Ahmedabad. He moved application to Passport office, Ahmedabad for providing information of accused vide application Ex.PW19/B and he collected the index card and thereafter they went to village Bhati Tola where they came to know that Nazir Mian was working in Mumbai. Accused took them to 7 Cuffeprade, Collaba and pointed out a flat where Nazir Mian was doing work. Nazir Mian met them who identified the accused and told them that accused had taken his passport on the pretext for sending him to Arab countries. On 10.1.06 Ram Avtar Bansal came to PS and handed over bill of his mobile phone mobile no. 9810347760 in the name of his brother Rakesh Kumar, bill of mobile phone number 9811076830 dated 20.01.05 in the name of Rakesh Bansal and Air Ticket of Gulf Air and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/A. Air ticket is Ex.P2, Mobile bill is Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. On 31.12.05 Ram Avtar Bansal identified accused as Nazir Mian who called him to Bahrain for dealing of wax business, identification memo is Ex.PW12/E. He State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

deposited the specimen handwriting/signatures, passport and embarkation card with FSL. The Result of FSL is Ex.PW9/A. He obtained sanction u/s 188 Cr.PC for prosecution of accused which is Ex.PW19/D.

27. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the witnesses it is revealed that PW1 Ram Avtar Bansal is the victim PW2 Rakesh Kumar is the relative of PW1 who allegedly gave the ransom and PW3 Puran Sharma @ Kalwari has introduced Nazir Malik to Ramavtar, PW8 Nazir Miyan Hussain Miyan Malik is the passport holder on which allegedly accused has travelled, PW10 Manmohan Gupta is the first complainant who got recorded DD entry first. First of all I will consider the deposition made by PW10 Manmohan Gupta. Ram Avtar Bansal is his Brother­in­Law (jija) and he has stated that on 10.10.05 his brother in law had gone to Behrain to finalize the deal of wax import. On 11.10.05 Rakesh Kumar,brother of Ramavtar came to his home and told that one Nazir Malik had detained Ram Avtar in Behrain and asked to arrange Rs.50.00 lac. Total Amount of Rs.9.50 lac was paid on 13.10.05. He had made complaint to DCP Crime and SHO Model Town. He produced copies of complaint Ex.PW10/A and B. I have also perused the said complaint. Complaint dated 12.10.05 State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Ex.PW10/B has been made to SHO PS Model Town stating that Ramavtar Bansal had gone to Behrain and he could not contact him and his mobile phone no. 9811076830 is also switched off. On the same day another complaint Ex.PW10/A has been made to DCP and in the said complaint he additionally added that Ram Avtar had gone to meet Mr. Malik having telephone no. 0097336314623 regarding business. Ramavtar was introduced by one Puran to Nazir Malik. On 11.10.05 phone call received regarding ransom of Rs.50 lac. But they could not arrange and next morning they were told to arrange Rs.20.00 lac. In the first complaint, PW10 has not disclosed the name of person with whom his brother in law had gone to meet. He has stated that in the morning they were asked to arrange Rs.20.00 lac. PW10 had made two complaints on 12.10.05. First complaint was made to SHO but in the said complaint he has not mentioned regarding ransom while in his complaint to SHO he has clearly mentioned that on 11.10.05 in the evening at about 8.30 p.m, Rakesh Bansal, brother of Ram Avtar received call regarding ransom of Rs.50.00 lac. When he was aware about receiving of ransom call on 11.10.05 by Rakesh Bansal, it is not understandable as to why he has not mentioned the same in his complaint Ex.PW10/B made to SHO PS Model Town. However, I have also considered the testimony of PW3 Pooran Sharma @ Kalwari State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

and he has stated that in the year 2005 accused present in the court visited his shop and revealed his name as Nazir Malik and asked about his profession of candle wax and asked him to purchase wax from him at low cost. He refused to purchase 20­22 tonne wax. He asked him to introduce him to a person from whom he used to purchase wax and he provided him mobile phone of Ram Avtar. Ram Avtar asked him for how long he know Nazir Malik and he informed that he had visited his shop today only and he is not familiar with him. Before Diwali Ram Avtar informed him that he has received call from Nazir and he is calling him to Behrain and he will go to Behrain and he replied 'aap jaise uchit samjhe waise karein. In cross examination he admitted that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC to the police dated 13.1.06 he has no where mentioned that Nazir Malik had asked him for reference or telephone number of person from whom he purchased wax. So, this witness has made improvement in his statement that Nazir Malik had asked him for telephone number of person form whom he purchased wax. The talk between Nazir Malik and Ram Avtar did not take place in his presence. Again on court question he has stated that Nazir Malik had asked for the number of Ram Avtar from him in his office and thereafter accused Nazir Malik had talked to Ramavtar from his mobile phone. Sometime this witness has stated that Nazir Malik had State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

talked with Ramavtar in his presence and sometime he has stated that they did not talk in his presence because in cross examination he has admitted that he was not present during any telephonic conversation between Nazir Malik and Ram Avtar and whatever he has stated is hearsay.

28. PW1 Ram Avtar Bansal is the victim and he has stated that he is doing wax business and dealt with one Puran of Jaipur. About 8­9 months of this incident he had gone to Jaipur where Puran met him and he visited in a hotel alongwith accused present in the court. Puran introduced him and informed him that the accused is also dealing in wax and he used to frequently visit Arab countries and he will supply wax at lower rate. PW3 Puran has given different version in this respect. He has not stated that he took the accused to hotel to meet PW1 Ram Avtar Bansal. PW3 has stated in his statement that accused met him only once but PW1 has stated that PW3 informed him that accused used to visit frequently in Arab countries. PW1 has further stated that accused informed him rates which were too high and that he cannot purchase on that price. After 5­7 months accused telephoned him and informed that he will arrange 300­350 tonne wax @ 530 Dollar per tonne which was 40 Dollars less. He asked for sample but State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

accused replied that he is unable to send sample. On 4.10.05 Emergent Passport was got issued and he sent photocopy to the accused on FAX, he does not recollect the fax number. On 09.10.05 accused had sent Visa from Behrain. On 10.10.05 at about 7.30 p.m he boarded in the aeroplane and reached Behrain after 7­8 hours. The accused present in the court alongwith one person met him outside Behrain airport. Accused informed him that he had arranged accommodation in hotel Elite. They reached in a villa situated on sea shore. The said villa was not of hotel Elite. Accused alongwith his accomplice put his luggage in a room which appeared to be meant for the drivers situated in the compound of the villa and they both put him inside the room. They stated beating him and they demanded Rs. 1.00 crore for the wax sent in 15 containers to him. He replied that he had not purchased any wax and he had come to see the sample. He received injuries on his person. The accused had snatched his passport, 500 USD, Rs.7000­Rs. 8000/­ and NOKIA phone 7610 having number 9811076830. The amount was reduced to Rs.50.00 lac. When he informed them that he is unable to pay such a huge amount, then they asked him to arrange Rs.20.00 lac. One more person of fair complexion came there and rebuked accused present in the court and asked him why he had gone to Airport to receive him and he also told him that boss will see him State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

(ab uski kheir nahin). After sometime accused present in the court left the said room. Dark complexion man kept on beating him. Dark complexion man asked that he will arrange his talk with his family members in India and in the evening he talked to his brother Rakesh Bansal on mobile phone and asked for Rs.50.00 lac.(Maine usko kaha ki paise ka intjaam karo aur samjha karo). Rakesh Bansal asked him whether he is in trouble and he replied 'yes'. Thereafter they snatched his mobile. Associates of accused also talked with his brother on mobile phone. On 13.10.06, the associates of accused agreed to receive Rs.9.50 lac with the condition that he shall pay remaining amount i.e. Rs.10.5 lac upon his arrival in India. The payment was made by his brother Rakesh Bansal at Balaji Hospital and after payment he was left at airport. From the airport he informed his family members. His family provided the phone number of Mr. Jain who was residing in Behrain. He talked to him and he informed the name of Capt Khamiz of Interpole who took him to interpole office and he narrated the incident. They could search the said villa on 15.10.05 where one guard met and informed the address of accused and his associates. Puran informed him that he knew him personally. He think that Puran is also mixed up with the accused. His brother handed over Rs.10/­ note provided by the associates of accused in India at the time State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

when he had received Rs.9.50 lac. He has stated that it is difficult for him to identify that currency note. The currency note is Ex.P1. The receipt of NOKIA phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A, receipt is Ex.PW1/B and air ticket is Ex.P2. Bill of telephone of his brother is Ex.P3 and his bill is Ex.P4. The mobile phone is Ex.P5. Photocopy of passport is Ex.P6 and photocopy of cash receipt which was sent by the accused from Behrain is Ex.P7. He went to Mumbai and identified the accused. Considering the above deposition of PW1 Ram Avtar Bansal, victim in this case has made allegation against the present accused only that he took him from airport to one villa and started beating there alongwith his associate and demanded Rs.1.00 crore for the wax sent to him in 15 containers. They snatched his mobile and USD 500 and Rs.7000­8000/­. One man came and thereafter accused present in the court left. As per his statement thereafter accused did not turn up there. I have also considered his cross examination. He has stated that invitation letter was sent to him from the side of party from Behrain and he attached the said document with his application form for Tatkal passport. He did not take any visiting card or reference from Malik introduced to him by Puran in Jaipur. Before leaving for Behrain, he made no attempt to inquire from Hotel 'Holiday Inn' whether there was any booking in his name. They normally import only from their State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

established sellers whom they know. He agreed that parafin wax is a byproduct of refined petroleum and the invitation letter which he got refers to paraffin wax. On seeing the letter dated 27.9.05, witness states that there is no reference of any type of wax in the letter Ex.PW1/DA. He admitted that he had stated that a dark complexion boy in Behrain used to make calls from his phone to his family members. They had taken away his mobile and he did not see it again in Behrain. He is not aware that out of about 8 billion tonnes of wax, about 7 billion tonne is manufactured in China, Latin America and European union. He had never imported wax from Behrain. There was no talk of any bank for mode of payment settled with regard to Behrain before he left for Behrain. He is not sure whether he had international credit card in the year 2005 again said it may be possible. He took a sum of 2000 Dollars for which he was issued a receipt. The witness produced photocopies of cash memo and encashment certificate which is Ex.PW1/DB and DC. He returned to India on 16/17.10.05 and from 13th to 16th he stayed with Mr. Jain in his house. Mr. Jain used to work in the year 2005 in PMO in Behrain. In the course of his business, he only visited Iran and during that trip he stopped over for one or two days in transit at Dubai. He did not know the name or address of his sponsor before leaving India for Behrain. State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

He import about 200 to 700 tonne wax in a year. He denied the suggestion that he has concocted the story of kidnapping to cover up for some other clandestine activity which he was pursuing in Behrain. He denied that the story of kidnapping was concocted to cover up an ulterior use of money. He denied that he on his own volition did not stay at Holiday Inn because he did not want to be within reach of public eye and his family members.

29. PW2 Rakesh Kumar who is the brother of Ram Avtar Bansal has stated that his brother had gone to Behrain on 10.01.05 to purchase wax from Mr.Malik. On 11.10.05 in the morning he made call on the mobile phone no. 9811076830 of his brother but telephone was switched off. At about 8 or 8.30 p.m on 11.10.05 his brother made telephone call on his mobile no. 9810347760 and asked to arrange Rs. 50.00 lac. He asked him for what purpose and he replied that he had entered into a deal. He further asked him, they used to send money outside India through Bank but his brother pressurized him to arrange money. 'Mere bhai ne baar baar kaha ki to baat ko samjhne ki koshish kar, to samjhta kyon nahi". This call was made by his brother from someone else's phone. He cannot tell that mobile number. He again made telephone on that number and asked to cancel the deal. He asked State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

his brother as to whether he was entangled somewhere and his brother stated yes. On 12.10.05 he received call to arrange Rs.20.00 lac and some other person from that very mobile but said mobile did not display the number of said mobile phone rather it used to display "private call". He replied that he can arrange only Rs.5.50 lac. He threatened him that in case of non payment, he will kill his brother. At last he replied that he can arrange Rs.9,50,000/­ and that person told him that his boy/associate would meet him at Balaji Hospital and will give him a Rs.10/­ note bearing no. 08R 39709 and then he should give the money. On 12.10.05 at about 8.30 p.m a person reached Balaji Hospital. He made call on his mobile number. He came out of the hospital and met that boy who handed over Rs.10/­ note. Again said he handed over the amount of Rs.9.50 lac on 13.10.05 and thereafter his brother was released by the kidnapper. He advised his brother to meet Mr. Jain in Bahrain who is Secretary in the PMO. Thereafter the matter was informed to the police about this incident on 11.10.05 at Delhi. Rs.10/­ note was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He identified the note of Rs.10/­. Considering the testimony of this witness it is revealed that he has stated that he received call from his brother to arrange Rs.50.00 lac and thereafter he received call from his brother to arrange Rs.20.00 lac and one other State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

person from that very mobile phone. He has stated that he handed over the money of Rs.9,50,000/­ to one boy at Balaji Hospital who handed over him note of Rs.10/­. He did not identify the accused that the money was handed over to him. Even his telephone did not display the number from where he had received the ransom call. PW2 did not state as to how he arranged the said amount of Rs.9,50,000/­. I have also perused his cross examination. Police did not seize his accounts or other documents relating to the business. He had not stated to the police that the mobile phone of his brother was found to be switched off when he made a telephonic call at his mobile phone on 11.10.05. They contacted Mr. Jain on 13.10.05. They did not contact him between 11.10.05 and 13.10.05. He admitted that there is no reference of said Mr. Jain stationed at Bahrain in his statement recorded by the Police. The said telephone number of the boy who contacted him at Balaji Hospital is possibly written in his diary. Police during investigation, did not ask or take from him telephone number from which he received a call at Balaji Hospital from the person who handed over Rs.10/­ note. The telephone number of the boy to whom the money was handed over by PW2 must have been displayed on the mobile number of PW2. But it has not been taken by the police for investigation. PW2 did not try to note the said number and hand over State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

to the police after release of his brother. No investigation has been conducted in this respect. Further PW2 has admitted in cross examination that he has not stated in his statement to the police, the manner in which the said amount of Rs.9.50 lac was arranged. He used internet. He deny that persons and companies dealing in wax can be traced on internet. He admitted that they made no complaint in Indian Embassy in Behrain. He had collected Rs.9.50 lac from his relatives. No relative has been examined who gave Rs.9.50 lac to PW2. He has not shown the same in his books. Police did not ask him about the relatives from whom the money was collected. His relatives have not taken back till today the money of Rs.9.50 lac. He does not know how much amount was lying in his account as well as in the account of his mother, wife and wife of Ramavtar. His relatives were present with him in Balaji Hospital. But no such relative has been examined in whose presence the money was given. From the testimony of PW2 it is not clear as to who asked him for ransom. First time his brother has asked him to arrange the money and thereafter he has stated that Rs. 20.00 lac was demanded by his brother and one more person. As per the evidence of PW1 the present accused had left the villa when one more person entered and stated that the boss will see him. Accused has not been arrested from the spot. TIP of accused has not been State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

conducted that he is the same person who asked for ransom. PW4 produced call details. But since present accused has not made any such call, I feel it that it does not require any discussion. So, it is clear that the present accused did not demand any ransom from the PW1 Or PW2.

30. PW8 Nazir Miyan Hussain Miyan Malik s/o Hussain Miyan Malik has stated that he has been working in Mumbai in a cufffeprade, the passport is Ex.PW8/A is his but photo affixed is not of him. He had given this passport to one Farukh who assured him that he will send him abroad and asked him for Rs.25,000/­. He has given visa after eight days and in lieu of visa he had given him Rs.10,000/­. He assured him that he will send him Kuwait within 15 days. After 15 days that person telephoned him and asked him to reach at Mumbai Airport alongwith remaining amount of Rs.15,000/­He asked him that he had not seen the airport and he had also requested him to visit his address. He told him that he will give him amount. He also requested him for his ticket and his passport which he had already given to him. But thereafter he did not come back nor made any call. His passport is Ex.PW8/A but it does not bear his photograph. Passport Ex PW8/A is not his passport and he refused to identify his signature on it. He had State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

given the passport to the accused after two years after the issue of his passport. He cannot tell the date being illiterate. Initially the present accused told his name Farukh, now he came to know his name as Salim Noor Mohd. from Police. PW8 Nazir Miyan Hussain Miyan Malik is the alleged person on whose passport present accused Salim Noor Mohd was travelling to abroad. He got issued passport during Nov. 1998. It has come in evidence that after about two year he gave the passport to Farukh, name told by present accused. It is clear that the passport was given by him near about Nov. 2000. The present case incident took place in the year 2005 and FIR was registered in the year 2006. PW8 is illiterate and therefore it seems that he could not make any complaint. I have also perused his cross examination. He has stated that he cannot say whose reference he gave in the application for passport. He admitted that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC he had nowhere stated that after taking Rs.10000/­ from him in lieu of visa the accused Farukh had ever telephoned him. No verification was conducted at his address given in the passport after 2003 and 2004. He is staying at the house of the person with whom he is working in cuffeparade. He denied the suggestion that he identified the accused only because his photograph is available on the passport. He had not noticed his passport number in any document. He does not generally State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

affix his signature except on the rare occasion which he might be requiring to do so. He cannot recollect whether Delhi Police took his sample signatures at the time when they came for investigation. I have also perused and given my thoughtful consideration on the testimonies of other official witnesses.

31. PW6 ASI Dharambir is the formal witness who recorded FIR. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW6/A. PW7 SI Jamesh Kujoor is also a formal witness who recorded DD no.22A Ex.PW7/A regarding missing of Ram Avtar Bansal. PW11 Ct. Ghanshyam is the witness to seizure of telephone bills of victim Ram Avtar Bansal and his brother vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A. PW14 Kamal Mool Chandani is the owner of hotel where accused Salim Noor Mohd stayed in Jan.2006 and he produced copy of register Ex.PW14/A. Further he has stated that accused Salim Noor stayed in their hotel by the name of Nazir. In a hotel a number of persons used to visit and one cannot recognize each and every person. As per his evidence accused stayed in the year 2006 and PW14 has been examined in the court in the year 2009. So, it is impossible for a person to recognize the person who was seen only once after such a long period of time. It is also not possible that PW14 has recognized that he stayed by the name of Nazir. PW16 State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Inspector Subhash Tandon has asked passport officer to provide details of Emergency passport no. E6569874 against previous passport no. A­6587082 and his request letter is Ex.PW16/A. LOC was opened in the name of Nazir Malik which was communicated to DCP, Crime and Railways and subsequently to Inter State Cell, same is Ex.PW16/C. He also received arrival details of Ram Avtar. On the basis of LOC accused was detailed at Sahar Mumbai Airport and SI Manjeet conducted the further investigation. In cross examination he admitted that date of request to interpole Bahrain is Ex.PW16/E dated 17.10.05. It is correct that the said communication contained only the name of Salim and no details of any passport or embarkation card or flight details. He did not direct any investigation with regard to telephone no. 00911 452628677 mentioned in Ex.PW16/E. It is correct that no written statement as refer to in the interpol request dated 17.10.05 was received by them either alongwith the request or subsequent. The embarkation card pertaining to accused and his visit to Bahrain is not available in India and he does not know whether the IO made any effort to get the same from authority in Bahrain. He cannot clarify the points mentioned in Ex.PW16/D from portion mark X to Y. I have also perused the said exhibits. Ex.PW16/A is the application written to Passport officer regarding verification of State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

passport against which index card mark A and B were provided on which photograph of Nazir Miyan Malik has been affixed. Ex.PW16/C is the TP message giving details of accused. Ex.PW16/D is the application for confirmation regarding departure and arrival of Ramavtar. As per report it has been mentioned that the departure of said person has been noticed on 10.01.05 by flight no. GF 135 but arrival could not be confirmed. Ex.PW16/E is the message received from Interpol Bahrain stating Saleem s/o Abdul Wahab Bhai left Behrain on 12 or 13 Oct. 2005 and victim left on 16.10.05. As per the evidence on file, the name of present accused on passport was Nazir Mian Hussain Mian Malek s/o Hussain Miyan Puja Miyan Malek. The accused has stated his father's name as Noor Mohammad. Interpole might have details from the passport. So, it seems that the information provided regarding leaving of Saleem s/o Abdul Wahab Bhai is related to some other person and not the present accused. However, PW17 Ct. Suresh produced the departure detail of Ram Avtar and arrival detail of Nazir Malik. PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar is the IO of this case and PW12 SI Ramesh Dabas remained with him in investigation. PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar has stated that they came to know that position of phone of Ram Avtar was in Ajmer and after taking ransom amount Rs. 9.50 lac he was released at Bahrain. On enquiry it was revealed that State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Nazir Miya had come to India on 12.10.05 after taking mobile phone of Ram Avtar. Pw12 and Pw19 both have corroborated the version of each other regarding detention of accused at Mumbai Airport and he was brought to Delhi by them and that his name came to know as Saleem Noor Mohd. Both have stated about arrest, personal search and disclosure statement of accused. On the basis of disclosure statement Ex.Pw12/A, accused got recovered the mobile phone from the shop of PW5 Umesh to whom he sold the phone. Both PW12 and 19 have further stated that brother of Ram Avtar handed over Rs.10/­ note which was seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A which was given by the boy at the time of receiving cash of Rs.9.50 lac. Accused took the police to his village where Yaqub brother of accused identified him as Salim Noor Mohd and handed over bill in the name of Sayyed Salim Noor which is Ex.PW12/G. PW19 has obtained the sanction u/s 188 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW19/D. I have also perused the cross examination of these witnesses but their testimonies could not be shattered by the Ld. Defence counsel.

32. In this case charge has been framed u/s 364A/468/471 IPC. Section 364A of IPC contemplates - whoever kidnaps or State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or (any foreign State or International inter­governmental organization or any other person) to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. The two essential ingredients of offence u/s 364 IPC are demand for ransom and the threat to cause death or hurt

33. Section 359 IPC defines kidnapping - Kidnapping is of two kinds, kidnapping from India and Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. PW1 Ram Avtar was born on 10.07.1956 and question of enticing from the lawful guardianship does not arise. PW1 has not stated that he was kidnapped by accused. He has clearly stated that he boarded the plane on his own. It has also not been established from the evidence that complainant was put to any danger in this case by the present accused. A mere demand of ransom amount for release of a kidnapped person is not sufficient to attract application of sec. 364A IPC unless it is also proved that the kidnapped person was threatened State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

with death or hurt or that the conduct of the kidnapper was such which could raise a reasonable apprehension that he could be put to death or hurt if the ransom amount was not paid. In the present case PW1 did not state that the accused had at any point of time threatened to cause his death or hurt. Even Pw1 has not assigned any role to present accused that he asked for ransom because he has stated that the accused and one more person took him to a villa and they started beating him and demanded Rs.1 crore for the wax sent in 15 containers to him. So, the alleged demand of Rs.1 crore has not been made for his release and it cannot be treated as ransom call. He has further specifically stated that one person of fair complexion came and told the accused that boss will see him and thereafter the present accused left. Thereafter demand of Rs.20.00 lac was made to the brother of Ram Avtar for his release by the remaining persons. PW1 has admitted in cross examination that dark complexion man used to make call to his family members from Behrain. But thereafter the present accused was not there. So, it is clear that the demand for ransom of Rs.20.00 lac or Rs.9.50 lac has not been made by the present accused. It is stated in case titled Rafiq Vs. State ILR (2008) 2 DEL 534 that :­ State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

'Mere demand for ransom amount for release of a kidnapped person is not sufficient to attract application of section 364A IPC unless it is also proved that the kidnapped person was threated with death or hurt or that the conduct of the kidnappers was such which can raise reasonable apprehension that he can be put to death or hurt if the ransom amount was not paid.'

34. No evidence has been led as to who collected the ransom amount. PW2 Rakesh Kumar did not state as to how he arranged the amount of Rs.9.50 lac. Even the boy whom the alleged money has been given by PW2 had made call on the mobile of PW2 to call him outside Balaji Hospital, but PW2 did not record the mobile number of that boy and gave the same to the police for investigation. Alleged amount has been given in the presence of relatives but no such relative has been examined. So, there being total absence of evidence in regard to any threat to cause death or hurt to the victim Ram Avtar and also for lack of evidence in regard to the victim conducting him in a way that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension that he would be put to death or hurt, the ransom demands simplicitor could not have brought the offence within the ambit of section 364A IPC. So, sec. 364A IPC does not attract in this case.

35. The present accused has also been charged u/s 468/471 State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

IPC. Section 468 IPC contemplates­ Forgery for the purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the (document or electronic record forged) shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and Section 471 IPC contemplates - Using as genuine a forged (document or electronic record) - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record). Ld. Defence counsel has strenuously urged that there is no evidence against accused u/s 468/471 IPC as victim Ram Avtar has stated that Visa was given to him by the accused and Visa used to be affixed on the passport. At the first blush, the arguments appears to be attractive but on closer scrutiny, I find no substance in it. The prosecution case is clear on this point because it has come in evidence that two passports bearing no. A6587082 valid upto 26.11.2008 and another passport no E6569874 issued on behalf of first passport were recovered from accused Salim Noor Mohd. The prosecution has examined PW8 Nazir Miyan State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

Hussain Miyan Malik on whose name the passport is and he has stated that he handed over his passport to one Farukh, accused told his name as Farukh at that time, for visa to Kuwait. He identified his signatures on passport. PW13 Krishan Kumar who has been examined from passport office has proved letter Ex.PW13/A with index card Ex.PW13/B on which the photograph of applicant is affixed. It was tendered to the passport office at the time of filing application for passport. It clearly mentions the name of applicant as Nazir Miya Hussain Miya Malek s/o Husain Miya Puja Miya Malek. On tallying the index card Ex.PW13/B proved by PW13 with the passport Ex.PW8/A, it is revealed that the photograph bears on index card do not match with the photograph on passport Ex.PW8/A. The applicant has kept his neck button closed in the index card while in the passport he left open his first neck button. On the passport the holder has mustache while the person on the index card does not have mustache. On perusal of the passport Ex.PW8/A it is revealed that the plastic cover under which the photograph has been affixed has also come out and it seems that the photograph has been inserted into it after taking out another photograph. Pw9 Devak Ram, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL has examined the handwriting of accused and given report Ex.PW9/A. I have also perused the said report. It has been observed State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

that the person who wrote red enclosed writing and signatures stamped and marked S1 to S9 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q2 to Q4. No opinion could be observed regarding Q1 on the basis of material at hand. Q1 is the writing of applicant who applied for passport while Q2 and S1 to S9 are the writing of the present accused. From perusal of the result of FSL it is also clear that signatures on Q2 to Q4 which are signatures of present accused and S1 to S9 have similarities. Q1 has different signatures which was signed by the applicant of passport Ex.PW8/A. So, the evidence on file clearly demonstrate that the passport Ex.PW8/A was not of present accused while his photograph is affixed on the said passport. It is emphatically clear that the present accused has forged the passport. On perusal of the passports it is revealed that the present accused had been obtaining visas and travelling abroad a number of times. This clearly establishes that he used the said forged passport as genuine. The prosecution has established the charge u/s 468/471 IPC.

36. In view of my above discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused u/s 364A IPC. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the commission State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

of offence punishable u/s 364A IPC. However, the prosecution has left no stone unturned to prove its case u/s 468/471 IPC. The charge against accused u/s 468/471 IPC stand proved. I, therefore hold accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 468/471 IPC and convict him thereunder.

Announced in the open Court on 05.02.2011.

(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track Court­New Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, (New Delhi & South East District) PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No.35/10 FIR No.01/06 U/s 468/471 IPC PS Chankyapuri State Vs. Saleem Noor Mohd. Sayeed @ Munna S/o Noor Mohd. @ Bhaiya R/o VPO Sami Opp Panchayat Ghar Bus Stand Road District Patan PS Sami, Gujarat .......... Accused ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE Accused Saleem Noor Mohd. Sayeed @ Munna has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 468/471 IPC and convicted thereunder vide Judgment dated 05.02.2011. State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the convict as well as accused/convict on the point of sentence. During the course of arguments it has been submitted on behalf of the convict that he is aged about 33 years old. He is languishing in Jail for last more than five years. He is the first offender and not previous convict. There is also no other case registered or pending against him in any other court of law. He has old aged parents. It has been prayed that lenient view may be taken against the accused/convict.

3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, convict Saleem Noor Mohd. Sayeed @ Munna is ordered to undergo RI for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­ u/s 468 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months.

4. Convict is further ordered to undergo RI for Five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/­ u/s 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six days.

5. The benefit of sec.428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict. Both the sentences of convict shall run concurrently. Copy of this order on the point of sentence and copy of Judgment be given to the State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.

convict free of cost. It is ordered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open Court on 09.02.2011.

(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track Court­New Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Saleem Noor Mohd.