State vs . Shan Mohd @ 1. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ ... on 27 November, 2020

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Shan Mohd @ 1. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ ... on 27 November, 2020

                     IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND
                 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 02 (WEST), DELHI.

Sessions Case No.                     57713/2016
Committed to Sessions on              15.10.2009
FIR No.                               104/2009
Police Station                        Crime Branch
Under Section                         U/s. 489B/489C IPC
                                      and 174A IPC
Charged U/S                           U/s.120B/489B/489C r/w.120B IPC and 174A
                                      IPC
State Vs. Shan Mohd @                 1. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu,
Shanu @ Chintu and                    s/o. Mohd. Illiyas,
others                                r/o. H.No. 949, Mohalla Kotla Mevatiyan, Near
                                      Ali Jaan Flour Mill, PS Hapur Kotwali, Hapur,
                                      District Ghaziabad, UP.
                                      2. Mohd. Naim @ Sajjid @ Nadeem,
                                      s/o. Mohd. Bhoora,
                                      r/o. Village Uldhan, PS Kharkhoda, District Meerut, UP.
                                      3. Mohd. Shrookh @ Chotta @ Aas Mohd.
                                      S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim,
                                      r/o. H.No. 214, Mohalla Purana Bazar,
                                      Sikander Gate, Near Ali Jaan Flour Mill, PS
                                      Kotwali, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, UP.
                                      4. Ombir Singh, s/o Kishan Lal, r/o. G45,
                                      Adhyapak Nagar, PS Nangloi, Dehli.
                                      5. Vipin Gupta, s/o. Om Prakash Gupta,
                                      r/o. C70/3, Swaroop Nagar, PS Swaroop
                                      Nagar, Delhi.
                                      6. Mohd. Muslim, s/o. Mohd. Ibrahim,
                                      r/o. H.No. 214, Mohalla Purana Bazar,
                                      Sikander Gate, Near Ali Jaan Flour Mill, PS
                                      Kotwali, Hapur, District Ghaziabad, UP.
Arguments heard                       28.10.2020
Date of such order                    27.11.2020




S.C. No. 57713/2016      State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others     page 1 of 102
 Sessions Case No.                   57713/2016
Final Order                         (I) Accused persons namely Vipin Gupta,
                                    Ombir Singh and Mohd. Muslim are acquitted.

                                    (II) Accused persons namely Shan Mohd.,
                                    Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh are
                                    convicted for offence u/s. 489C IPC.



Appearance(s) : Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
                Sh. Jitender Sethi, Ld. Counsel for accused
                Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Ombir Singh.
                Sh. I.A. Alvi, Ld. Counsel for accused Vipin
                Gupta, Mohd. Shahrukh and Mohd. Muslim.

                                       JUDGMENT

1. The case pertaining to the charge sheet being filed after investigation u/s.

173 (2) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 104/2009 for the alleged offence u/s. 120B/489B/489C r/w.120B IPC and 174A IPC of PS Crime Branch.

2. The brief factual matrix as per the case of the prosecution is that in the first week of June 2009, a secret information was received that one notorious gang of Western U.P. is involved in trafficking of counterfeit Indian currency from Nepal and Pakistan and on 29.06.2009 as per the secret information it was confirmed that two members of this gang namely Shanu and Naim have gone to Nepal to take delivery of the consignment of counterfeit Indian currency and secret watch was maintained on their hide out in Delhi and U.P. Again on 01.07.2009, DD No. 8A dated 01.07.2009 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 2 of 102 was recorded at 2:00 pm on the information from the secret informer to SI Manjeet Tomar that two persons namely Naim and Shanu in the evening at about 7:00 pm would come to deliver fake Indian currency and they will receive the genuine Indian currency of half of the amount of fake currency. SI Manjeet was also informed that those two persons will use the word "Chamra". The said information was shared by SI Manjeet Singh to Inspector Ashok Sharma and ACP, who instruct to proceed further as per law.

3. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted consisting of Inspector Ashok Sharma, SI Manjeet Tomar, SI Ram Avtar, ASI Mahender Singh, HC Satpal, HC Surender, HC Rishi Pal, HC Subodh, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Sanjay including the secret informer. At about 5:00 pm all the raiding party members departure from their office in a Government vehicle Qualis and one private motorcycle and reached at Rajouri Garden Metro Station about 6:00 pm and 67 public persons were requested to join the raiding party but none agreed and left without telling their name and addresses. Thereafter, without wasting time SI Manjeet Tomar appointed HC Subodh as decoy customer and his personal search was conducted, his belongings purse, ID card and money was handed over the HC Satyapal and SI Manjeet prepared personal search of HC Subodh to the said effect. HC Subodh was directed to deal with the counterfeit currency notes from the persons whom the informer identified using the code "Chamra" (leather) and after striking the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 3 of 102 deal for the counterfeit currency note he will give the signal as decided i.e. waving his hand over his head. HC Rishipal was appointed as shadow witness and he was directed to hear the conversation between HC Subodh and the persons, if needed he will also help HC Subodh.

4. Thereafter, both HC Subodh and HC Rishipal were sent immediately alongwith secret informer near metro station, Rajouri Garden and rest of the staff was directed that they will follow up the signal of HC Subodh and apprehend the person selling/dealing the counterfeit currency. SI Manjeet alongwith other staff positioned near parking of shopping mall adjacent to the metro station, Rajouri Garden.

5. At about 7:10 pm secret informer pointed out towards two boys coming on foot from Vishal Cinema side, when they reached near metro station, Rajouri Garden, HC Subodh struck the deal of counterfeit currency with them. When they were showing counterfeit Indian currency HC Subodh waive his hand on the head, the signal already decided. Thereafter, SI Manjeet alongwith accompanying staff apprehended them. Thereafter, SI Manjeet disclosed his identity and also the purpose of apprehending them. On inquiry their names and addresses were disclosed as Shan Mohd. @ Shanu s/o. Mohd. Liyas r/o. H.No. 949, Mohalla Kotla, Mevatiyan, near Ali Jahan Flour Mill, PS Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, U.P. aged 21 years and Mohd. Naim @ Sajid, s/o. Mohd. Bhura, r/o. Village and P.O. Uldhan, S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 4 of 102 P.S. Kharkhoda, District Meerut, U.P., aged 22 years. At this time, also SI Manjeet requested 2/3 passersby to join the police proceedings but none of them joined and left the place without telling their names and addresses after expressing their justified reasons. Thereafter, SI Manjeet Tomar informed to both the abovesaid accused persons that they are in possession of counterfeit currency and their search is to be taken and also offered that they may take the personal search of raiding party if they wishes so but both the persons refused. Thereafter, SI Manjeet Tomar took out the search of accused Shan Mohd. and on his search total Rs. 20,000/ in the denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered from right side back pocket of the pant (trouser) and same were seized through seizure memo. Thereafter, search of another accused namely Mohd. Naim was carried out and total Rs. 18,500/ in the denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered from right side front pocket of his jeans. The seized notes were kept in transparent plastic sheets and converted into two pulandas with the help of tape and sealed with the seal of MT. Both pulandas were given as mark A and B respectively. SI Manjeet Tomar thoroughly and carefully checked the seized the counterfeit currency notes and found that the paper of these notes is weaker and rough than the original currency notes, the serial number printed on these notes were also different in size than the original one, the water mark of Mahatma Gandhi is also not identical and RBI leaf printing on the security thread is also not clear. On view and touch apparently they are found counterfeit currency. Hence, both accused persons namely Mohd.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 5 of 102 Naim and Shan Mohd. Have indulge themselves in trafficking and sale of Indian Counterfeit currency notes and thereby they have committed offences u/s. 489B/489C/34 IPC.

6. Thereafter, rukka Ex. PW19/A was prepared by mentioning the above averments therein and was handed over to Ct. Sanjay at 9:00pm for registration of the FIR to duty officer with the request to entrust the investigation to SI Manjeet as he is busy in investigation at the spot.

7. Thereafter, SI Manjeet interrogated both accused persons named above and arrested as per procedure. During interrogation both the accused further told that one of their associate namely Mohd. Shahrukh @ chota was also coming at the spot alongwith the counterfeit currency and in the meantime, both the accused persons identified one person as Mohd. Shahrukh @ chota who was coming from Raja Garden Chowk towards Rajouri Garden Metro Station. Mohd. Shahrukh @ chota was apprehended with the help of staff and on conducting his personal search total Rs. 7,500/ in denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered from his possession. On carefully checking the said currency notes in the above manner SI Manjeet came to know that said currency is also counterfeit. On inquiry, the name of accused was disclosed as Mohd. Shahrukh @ chota @ Aas Mohd. S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim r/o. H.No. 214, Mohalla Purana Bazar, Sikander Gate near Ali Jahan Flour Mill, PS Hapur Kotwali, District Ghaziabad, U.P. Seized notes were kept in plastic S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 6 of 102 seal and convert into pulanda with the help of tape and sealed with the seal of MT and pulanda was given mark 'C'. After interrogation accused Mohd. Shahrukh was arrested. Thereafter, SI Manjeet inspected the site and prepared site plan of spot without scale and recorded statement of witnesses.

8. During the interrogation of accused persons also revealed that their gang is well established in criminal activity of trafficking of Indian currency and their gang leader was one Jamil @ Bhura who was arrested by UP police in murder case and after his arrest his younger brother Mohd. Muslim took over the command of the gang. Accused Shan Mohd. was also released from Tihar jail somewhere in 2009 after spending nearly 2 years in a similar offence in a case booked by DRI in the year 2007 for counterfeit currency of Rs. 10 lakhs. Mohd. Naim was also earlier arrested in 2007 by special cell of Delhi Police when he had bought a big consignment of Rs. 33 lakhs counterfeit currency from Pakistan and was released from jail in 2008.

9. Since their release from jail police was mounted regularly surveillance over their activities. During the interrogation, it was revealed that all these three accused persons came to Delhi to make the initial delivery of Rs. 46,000/ to their customers. During interrogation it was also revealed that main consignment of more than Rs. 10 lakhs of fake Indian currency which they S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 7 of 102 have recently brought from Nepal has been kept in Village Tajpur, District Bulandshahar, U.P. and at the instance of accused said counterfeit currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ in the denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered.

10. During investigation it was also revealed that accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir were local contacts in Delhi and on 06.07.2009 both these accused were also arrested. One computer and one scanner have also been recovered from the flat of Vipin Gupta. During the personal search two counterfeit currency notes in denomination of Rs. 500/ and four counterfeit currency notes in denomination of Rs. 500/ were recovered from accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta respectively.

11. Thereafter, all the seized counterfeit currency were sent to currency note press Nasik and expert opinion were obtained. In his report, the expert has opined that all the seized currency notes were counterfeit currency.

12. During the investigation efforts were made to arrest accused Mohd. Muslim mentioned in column no. 12 but of no avail, hence, coercive measures were adopted to apprehend accused Mohd. Muslim and against the remaining accused persons report u/s. 173 Cr.PC was prepared and filed in the court in the form of charge sheet opining that offence u/s. 489B/489C/120B/34 IPC are made out against all the accused persons based on the evidences collected.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 8 of 102

13. After making compliance of section 209 Cr.PC, considering the material on record and hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons, Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under section 489B/489C/120B/34 IPC against all the accused persons to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, charges were framed vide order dated 04.01.2010.

14. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of trial of above accused persons, accused Mohd. Muslim was arrested and subsequently charge sheet was received in this court by assignment. Accordingly, separate charge u/s. 489C r/w. Sec. 120B and 174A IPC was framed vide order dated 04.01.2012 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is also pertinent to mention that till the framing of charge against accused Mohd. Muslim, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. However, accused was given offer to recall the said 11 witnesses and after consultation with his Counsel, accused shows his unwillingness to call the said 11 witnesses and in this regard separate statement of Sh. Riyaz Mohd., Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Muslim, who also representing coaccused Vipin and Ombir during the trial and was aware with the evidence of all these 11 witnesses, stated that he adopted the evidence of all the witnesses including the cross examination already done on behalf of accused Mohd. Muslim as well. Thereafter, remaining witnesses were examined in the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 9 of 102 presence of accused Mohd. Muslim.

15. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as much as 22 witnesses. The testimony of prosecution witnesses are as under :

16. PW1 SI Gyaneshwar Baddha, PS Kotwali Dehaat, District Bulandshahar, U.P. has deposed that on 05.07.2009 police officials of Crime Branch i.e. SI Manjeet with other staff came at their police post Bhure, Bulandshahar with one accused Shan Mohd. in custody and he alongwith the IO joined the investigation of this case being the local police officer went to Village Tajpur and further deposed that in his presence, one lady who was identified by accused Shan Mohd. as his khala namely Zaitoon handed over the suitcase which accused left in her house after a little hesitation and on checking the said suitcase was found containing fake currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ in denomination of Rs. 500/ which was seized by SI Manjeet Tomar vide memo Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and he has identified the said counterfeit currency in the court as Ex. P3. This witness has also identified one towel, one charger, jeans pant, shawl, other clothes etc. with a pair of chappel which was recovered from the suitcase as Ex. P2.

17. PW2 Chander Bhan, MLO, Janakpuri has deposed that Bajaj Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SAY7415 was registered in the name of S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 10 of 102 Gulab r/o. X105, camp no. 1, Nangloi, Delhi and the particulars of the vehicle proved as Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, PW2 was again recalled for accused Mohd. Muslim and thereafter another PW2 Satya Prakash, LDC, Transport Department appeared and proved the above record again.

18. PW3 HC Subodh, member of raiding team constituted on 01.07.2009, who conducted proceedings at Rajouri Garden, Metro Station and arrested three accused persons and recovered the counterfeit currency. This witness was also made decoy customer by the IO and he dealt with accused Shan Mohd. and Naim. This witness has identified the accused persons as well as the case property correctly. This witness has deposed on the line of PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO

19. PW4 M.N. Vijiyan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services has deposed that he supplied the call details record of mob. no. 9278064305 for the period 17.02.2009 to 27.08.2009 as proved the same as Ex. PW4/A. He also proved the application form as Ex PW4/B, copy of ID proof as Ex. PW 4/C, Cell ID list of Delhi Circle as Ex. PW4/D. He has also proved the call details for the period 17.02.2009 to 27.08.2009 as Ex. PW4/E and his letter in this regard as Ex. PW4/F. It is pertinent to mention that after the arrest of accused Mohd. Muslim, this witness was recalled again and on his behalf PW22 Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services appeared and deposed on the line as above and affirmed the above document and S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 11 of 102 record.

20. PW5 HC Rishi Pal again a member of raiding party and has deposed on the similar line as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO. This witness has identified the accused persons as well as counterfeit currency correctly. This witness was made shadow witness at the time of raid on 01.07.2009 at Rajouri Garden, Metro Station about 6:00pm by IO SI Manjeet Tomar and in his presence accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh were arrested.

21. PW6 Smt. Zaitoon, w/o. Late Yamin Qureshi, examined as independent public witness to prove the factum of recovery lying in the suit case which was recovered by the IO and his team from her house in village Tajpur, District Bulandshahar at the instance of accused Sham Mohd. However, this witness did not speak anything in favour of the prosecution story. Even this witness was warned to prosecute for giving false evidence and was declared hostile by Ld. State Counsel despite she did not speak anything in favour of prosecution. Hence, her testimony is of no use to the prosecution.

22. PW7 HC Surender again is a witness of raiding team qua the raid conducted on 01.07.2009 at Rajouri Garden Metro Station and deposed on the similar line as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO. This witness has also identified the accused persons as well as S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 12 of 102 counterfeit currency correctly. This witness has also deposed that on 26.07.2009 at the direction of IO, he collected counterfeit currency note in 6 pulandas vide RC no. 222/21/09 and deposited the same in Nasir Note Press, Nasik on 27.07.2009 and have also deposed that SI Ram Avtar and Ct. Manoj were also with him and stayed there for 23 days, collected the report on 30.07.2009, came back to Delhi again on 31.07.2009 and handed over the report to IO as well as the case property to MHC(M). This witness has also deposed that on 24.08.2009 he joined the investigation of this case and in his presence on Ravi Kalra reached in the office and handed over two documents to the IO, which IO seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature at point A, photocopy of ticket Ex. PW7/B and photocopy of authorising letter in name of Ravi Kalra as Ex. PW7/C.

23. PW8 Dharamveer Singh has deposed that he has given 3 rd floor of his house to one Akanksha and said Akanksha after 23 days brought one person pretending her husband as Naveen. He further deposed that on 28.08.2009 he was called in Chanakyapuri and shown a photograph of a person to whom he identify as Naveen who lived with Akanksha in his house and the said witness in the court pointed out towards accused Mohd. Naim stating that he is the said Naveen. Hence, accused Mohd. Naim was correctly identified as the person who lived with one Akanksha in the house of Dharamveer Singh.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 13 of 102

24. PW9 Ravi Kalra, travel agent deposed that on 26.07.2009, a ticket was booked from his shop as he was doing the work of booking of Eticket of railways and the said tickets were booked in the name of Wasim and Naim. He has issued the certificate in this regard as Ex. PW7/C. He has also proved the ticket as Ex. PW9/A.

25. PW10 HC Bhupesh, Duty Officer has deposed that on 01.07.2009 while he was posted as Duty Officer from 8 pm to 8 am he received a rukka from Ct. Sanjay sent by SI Manjeet Tomar and recorded present FIR as Ex. PW 10/A. He also proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW10/B.

26. PW11 Gulab Singh has deposed that he is having motorcycle Citi 100 bearing no. 7415. He further deposed that while he was sitting on vegetable shop Ombir and Vipin came to ask for motorcycle and he gave the same to them. Late on he came to know both the accused involved in trafficking of fake currency notes. This witness could not recollect the date of incident but on asking by Ld. State Counsel he affirmed that date of incident as 06.07.2009.

27. PW12 HC Satyapal again a member of the raiding team has deposed on the similar lines as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19, IO/SI Manjeet Tomar and corroborated the testimony of these witnesses.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 14 of 102

28. PW13 Constable Sanjay again a member of the raiding team has deposed on the similar lines as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19, IO/SI Manjeet Tomar and corroborated the testimony of these witnesses.

29. PW14 Constable Manoj again a member of the raiding team has deposed on the similar lines as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19, IO/SI Manjeet Tomar and corroborated the testimony of these witnesses.

30. PW15 HC Chand Ram, MHC(M), Crime Branch has deposed that on 01.07.2009 he was posted as MHC(M) and on the same day, on 05.07.2009 and 07.07.2009, IO deposited the case property in sealed condition which he entered in the record. This witness has also deposed that on 26.07.09 he sent 6 pulandas of fake currency and CFSL form through HC Surender to currency note press Nasik vide RC no. 222/21 and have also deposed that on 31.07.2009 HC Surender had returned back and deposited one pulanda duly sealed with the seal of security press, Nasik. This witness has proved relevant entries of register no. 19 collectively as Ex. PW15/A and copy of register no. 19 collectively as Ex. PW15/B.

31. PW16 Inspector Ashok Sharma again a member of the raiding team and has deposed on the similar line as PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19, IO/SI Manjeet Tomar and corroborated the testimony of these witnesses. This witness has also deposed that he being the senior officer was S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 15 of 102 supervising the raiding team.

32. PW17 Prakash Sadasiv Ughade has deposed that on 27.07.2009 while he was posted as Works Manager in Currency Note Press, Nasik and received 2120 notes of Rs. 500/ each of different numbers. After examining the said notes he prepared his report Ex. PW7/A and sent back to ACP Crime Branch alongwith the currency notes in sealed condition.

33. PW20 ASI Satyawan is a witness of formal nature pertaining to the arrest of accused Mohd. Muslim pursuant to DD no. 29B and have deposed that he apprehended accused Mohd. Muslim near Mundka Metro Station, West with the help of Ct. Vinod and Neeraj and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/A and personal search memo Ex. PW20/B and also prepared the kalandra u/s. 41(1)D Cr.PC Ex. PW20/C.

34. PW21 HC Rajender again a witness of formal nature who joined the investigation of this case in the court while accused Mohd. Muslim was being produced int eh court by IO SI Manjeet Tomar. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Muslim recorded by IO as Ex. PW21/A. He also deposed that accused was arrested by IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW21/B and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW21/C. S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 16 of 102

35. PW22 Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services has deposed and proved the record already proved by PW4 M.N. Vijiayan, Nodal Officer of Tata Tele Services Ltd. qua accused Mohd. Muslim.

36. PW18 is Inspector Ram Avtar, who has deposed as under :

"In June 2009, I was posted at InterState Cell, Crime Branch, Chankya Puri, New Delhi. An information regarding Bhura, who is running a notorious gang in U.P., West, was received to the effect that fake currency notes are brought from Nepal and same is supplied in Delhi. The information was gathered with regard to Bhura Gang. On 01.07.2009, SI Manjit Tomar received one secret information that two members of Bhura Gang would come near Metro Station Rajouri Garden, with fake currency notes to deliver the same and these people use the word "Chamda" for Rs.500/ denomination currency note. The information was discussed with the senior officers and the information was reduced into writing in the form of DD No.8 at about 02:30 PM. A raiding party consisting of Insp. Ashok Sharma, SI Manjit Tomar, myself, ASI Mahender Singh, HC Subodh, HC Rishipal, HC Satyapal, HC Surender, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Sanjay, was constituted. All the police officials were in plain clothes. HC Subodh and HC Rishipal were on one motorcycle and all the remaining police officials were in TATA qualis. All the members of the raiding party were briefed about the secret information. We made our departure from our office vide DD No. 12 at about 05:30 PM. Thereafter, we reached near Rajouri Garden Flyover, 56 passersby requested by Insp. Ashok and SI Manjit by narrating the facts of the secret information, to join the raiding party but none was willing to join the same and they left the spot by telling their personal difficulties. Thereafter, we went Metro Station Rajouri Garden, SI Manjit deployed HC Subodh Kumar as decoy customer and HC Rishipal was deputed as a shadow witness. Search of HC Subodh Kumar was taken by the IO and articles found on his person were taken and a memo was prepared to this effect, vide Ex.PW3/A which bears my signatures at point B. HC Rishipal was directed to give signal, after the deal is struck between HC Subodh and accused. All the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 17 of 102 members of the raiding party have taken their position near the metro station. At about 07:10 PM, two persons came from the direction of Vishal Cinema, later on their names revealed as Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Naim. The secret informer who was with us, pointed towards those persons as the same person. HC Subodh had conversation with those two persons and we were waiting for the signal of HC Rishipal. After hearing the conversation, HC Rishipal gave us the predetermined signal that is furling his hand over his head. After having received the signal, we police officials apprehended those two persons. SI Manjit conducted search of one of the accused whose name revealed as Shan Mohd. on interrogation. From the back right side pocket of the pant of Shan Mohd. 40 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered and from its appearance the notes appeared to be fake notes. IO noted down the numbers of these 40 currency notes on a paper in the form of seizure memo vide Ex.PW18/A, which bears my signatures at point A. IO kept these 40 fake currency notes in a transparent polythene and it was tied with the help of tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and he parcel was given mark A. SI Manjit also conducted search of other accused whose name later on revealed as Mohd. Naim @ Sajid. From the front right side pocket of his jeans pant, 36 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered and on appearance these noes also appeared to be fake. IO prepared seizure memo of the fake currency notes, kept the same in a separate transparent polythene, tied with the tape and sealed with the seal of MT and this parcel was given mark B. the currency notes were taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW18/B, which bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, SI Manjit Tomar prepared tehrir, gave the same to Ct. Sanjay for getting the case registered. After some time, Ct Sanjay informed from Crime Branch PS that FIR number 104/09 is being recorded with regard to the present case. Both the accused persons were interrogated by SI Manjit and they both disclosed the name of their third associate i.e. Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota. After some time, Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota came towards Metro Station and both the accused Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Naim pointed towards their associates and stated that he was Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota. Third accused namely Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota was overpowered and IO also conducted his search and from the right side pocket of his pant, 15 fake currency notes of S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 18 of 102 Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. IO prepared the seizure memo of the said 15 fake currency notes, kept the same in another transparent polythene, tied with tape, affixed the seal of MT and it was given mark C and the parcel was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW18/C which bears my signatures at point A. IO interrogated all the three accused persons and later on all the three accused persons were arrested by the IO and IO prepared their arrest memo and personal search memo, vide Ex.PW18/D, E, F, G, H and I which bear my signatures at point A. At about 12:30 in the night, Ct. Sanjay came at the spot and produced the copy of the FIR and original tehrir before SI Manjit. IO recorded statement of HC Rishipal and HC Subodh Kumar. Thereafter, we all the police officials went to PS Crime Branch. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were brought to the Crime Branch office, Chanakya Puri. IO recorded statement of police officials under section 161 Cr.p.C. IO also interrogated accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements of Accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Sharukh, vide Ex.PW18/J,K and L, which bear my signatures at point A. IO also recorded statement of Insp. Ashok and my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Accused persons were produced before the concerned court and all the three accused persons were taken on police remand till 10.07.2009. We came back to our office along with the accused persons and all the three accused persons were sustainly interrogated. On 04.07.2009, accused Shan Mohd. disclosed that he along with Mohd. Naim brought fake currency notes from Nepal and they have kept the fake currency notes in a suitcase which they had kept at one of their relative namely Smt. Jetun, Khala of accused Shan Mohd, a resident of Village Tajpur, near Bulandsahar, U.P. IO recorded supplementary disclosure statement of Shan Mohd. vide Ex.PW18/M, which bears my signatures at point A. Senior officer were apprised regarding the same, permission was obtained to proceed to the aforesaid place and accordingly, a team consisting of myself, one lady Ct. Lata, SI Manjit, Insp. Ashok Sharam, ASI Mahender Singh, ASI Surender (driver), HC Satyapal, Ct. Manoj and other police officials (total 11 police officials), proceeded from our office after making departure entry for going to aforesaid place in govt. qualis vehicle besides private car of Insp. Ashok. We reached at Chowki Choraha, Bulandsahar, sought assistance from the local S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 19 of 102 police officials namely SI Gyanesh, incharge, PP and two local police officials were deputed to join the investigation. Then we reached to village Tajpur where accused Shan Mohd. pointed his Khala's house. The house was found lock. We tried to ascertain from the neighbourers but nothing could be ascertained. Sources were deployed with the help of local police officials and they were directed to inform as and when they have any clue regarding Smt. Jetun. Thereafter, we went to Chowki Choraha, Bulandsahar. Local police officials were relieved there itself. Thereafter, we came back to Delhi. On the next day morning, we all the aforesaid police officials along with lady Ct. Rajoliya again went at village Tajpur after taking the local police officials, smt. Jetun was found present at her residence and she was identified by accused Shan Mohd. as her Khala to whom he had given the suitcase containing fake currency notes. Accused Shan Mohd. asked Smt. Jetun to produce the suitcase which he had given to her. Initially, Smt. Jetun was hesitating but when accused Shan Mohd. stated that the suitcase is containing his clothes, then she produced the suitcase from the inner side room. IO checked the suitcase and it was containing 67 clothes i.e. pant, Tshirt, towel etc. It was also found containing biscuit and noodles packets and both these articles were made in Nepal. In the meanwhile, some villagers collected at the spot, IO requested them to join the investigation but none came forward to join the investigation. Accused Shan Mohd. was asked as to where were the fake currency notes in that suitcase and accused Shan Mohd. stated that a special cavity box is made inside the suitcase and the said box is made at the time when the suitcase is in the process of manufacturing itself and by a simple look, one cannot ascertain anything regarding cavity box. The layer of the cavity box got cut with the help of blade and currency notes were found inside that cavity box. All the currency notes were taken out from the cavity box and IO prepared the seizure memo of the said counterfeit Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ (total Rs.10,11,500/). 26 bundles were prepared by the IO as per the seizure memo, and all the 26 bundles were kept in a bigger pulanda, it was sealed with the seal of MT and the same was taken into possession Ex.PW1/A, which bears my signatures at point C and this parcel was given mark D. IO had also obtained the thumb impression of Smt. Jetun on the seizure memo as a witness. The suitcase containing clothes was also S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 20 of 102 taken into possession and it was also tied with the help of white Patti and it was also sealed with the seal of MT and the suitcase was also taken into possession through same seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. IO recorded statement of Smt. Jetun, SI Gyanesh and other police officials. Thereafter, we alll the police officials came to Chowki Bhud Choraha, Bulandsahar, local police officials were relieved at about 07:30 Pm and we reached Crime Branch PS Delhi. Case property was deposited int he malkahan and thereafter we went to office. On 06.07.2009, accused Mohd. Naim was interrogated and IO recorded his supplementary disclosure statement vide Ex.PW18/N which bears my signatures at point A, wherein he disclosed regarding presence of his associate namely Vipin Gupta in Delhi and stated that after taking 50%55% original currency notes, they used to give 100% fake currency notes. Mohd. Naim further disclosed that he was residing in a tenanted room situated at Sarai Peepal Thala, near Jahangir Puri Metro Station, Delhi and he further stated that he used to meet Vipin Gupta near Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangirpuri and he could call Vipin on telephone. The mobile phone which was taken into police possession from accused Mohd. Naim at the time of his arrest, was given to Mohd. Naim and he was asked to make a call to coaccused Vipin Gupta and accordingly, he made a call to Vipin Gupta and asked him to collect the assignment at 07:00 PM at Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted consisting of myself, SI Manjit, HC Satyapal, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Manoj and other police officials and we all the police officials along with accused Mohd. Naim proceeded in a govt. qualis. Before proceeding, SI Manjit prepared a dummy packet, allegedly to have been containing fake currency notes. Before starting from our office, we made Mohd. Naim to make another call to Vipin Gupta and it was stated by Vipin Gupta that he has already arranged an amount of Rs.25,000/ and would be arranging the remaining amount and would reach at the the determined place. We reached near Aggarwal Sweets at about 06:3006:45 PM. IO requested some public persons to join the investigation but none come forward. We waited for considerable period of time as it was assured by Vipin Gupta to reach at the place. At about 10:00 PM, two persons were found coming from Jahangirpuri metro station side on a motorcycle and motorcycle was stopped at Aggarwal Sweets. HC Satpal was deputed with accused Mohd.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 21 of 102 Naim and he was directed to give signal after the deal was struck. We reaming police officials have taken our positions. Accused Mohd. Naim identified those two persons. One person whose name later on revealed as Ombir was having a Pithoo Bag of Khaki Colour at his back and he had given the said bag, stated to have been containing the amount and he gave the said bag to Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Naim gave the dummy packet to Ombir, which we had given to Mohd. Naim. HC Satpal gave predetermined signal and we overpowered both the persons and on interrogation their names revealed as Ombir and Vipin Gupta. SI Manjit checked the Pithoo Bag and it was found containing an amount of Rs.25,000/ i.e. two packets of Rs.100/ denomination and five currency notes of Rs.1000/ denomination. All these currency notes were original Indian currency notes. IO prepared the memo of these currency notes, dummy packet and the pithoo bag vide memo Ex.PW12/A which bears my signatures at point B. IO also conducted search of Vipin Gupta and four fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. IO kept these fake currency notes in a transparent polythene, tied with the tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and it was given mark E and was taken into possession vide Ex.PW18/O, which bears my signatures at point A. IO also conducted search of Ombir and two fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. IO kept these fake currency notes in a transparent polythene, tied with the tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and it was given mark F and was taken into possession vide Ex.PW18/P, which bears my signatures at point A. Both the accused persons were arrested, IO prepared their arrest memo and personal search memo vide Ex.PW18/Q, R, S and T which bear my signatures at point A. IO interrogated both the accused persons, recorded their disclosure statements, vide Ex.PW18/U and V, which bears my signatures at point A. Accused Vipin Gupta stated that he has hired one flat No.141, at Sector22, Pocket15, Rohini. Where he had kept one computer, scanner and printer and scanning is being undertaken with the help of Sonu, Ram and third namely Arun, all residents of Nangloi, Delhi and with their help, they used to circulate the fake currency notes in the market. Thereafter, we all the police officials had taken all the aforesaid address, that flat was found locked and it was opened by accused Vipin Gupta, we entered inside the Flat and from there, one computer, one printer, one S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 22 of 102 scanner along with cord were taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/W, which bears my signatures at point A. All these articles were sealed with the seal of MT. The motorcycle on which both the accused persons came, was seized vide Ex.PW18/X, which bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter, we came back to crime branch PS, the case property was deposited in the malkhana, then we came back to our office along with the accused, where IO recorded our statement. I identify all the accused persons present in the court. On 26.07.2009, I along with HC Surender and Ct. Manoj went Nasik Printing Press and deposited the case property there,vide RC No. 222/21/09 and obtained receipts from there. I also obtained the result and gave the same to IO. I deposited the case property which I received from Printing Press and gave the same to MHC(M). I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, further examination in chief is deferred. During the course of investigation, SI Manjit had taken the excess fair ticket of train from Delhi to Gorakhpur, the electronic reservation slip from Delhi to Gorakhpur in the name of Naim and Wasim, into his possession through seizure memo Ex.PW19/C, which bears my signatures at point A. I can identify the case property if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one sealed parcel with the seal of court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one transparent polythene on which mark A is written, it contains 40 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark B is written, it contains 36 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark C is written, it contains 15 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one cartoon box polythene, it contains total amount of Rs.10,11,500/ in Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark E is written, it contains 4 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark F is written, it contains 2 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each. At this stage, MHC(M) also produced one suitcase some clothes. This suitcase is having now a open box cavity. MHC(M) also produced one scanner, CPU containing other accessories of computer and printer duly sealed and one monitor without seal. At this stage, S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 23 of 102 MHC(M) stated that he has also brought the aforesaid motorcycle in question which is kept in Tata 407 which is parked in the court premises and at this stage, Ld. Counsel and the witness proceeded to the parking and after coming back from there witness stated that I have seen the motorcycle Black colour Bajaj motorcycle which is kept in the Tata407. This is the same motorcycle on which accused Vipin and Ombir came and this is the same motorcycle which I had taken into my possession through seizure memo. The case property has already been exhibited in the deposition of PW12 HC Satyapal as Ex.PW PW3/A to G, Ex.PW3/H, J, K, L. At this stage, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one CPU along with cord, one colour monitor, one keyboard, one mouse, one scanner, one printer. All the case property except the colour monitor are in sealed condition. I identify the case property as the same which was recovered from room no.141, Pocket15, Sector22, Rohini, Delhi. The case property is collectively Ex.18/PX1. XXXX By Shri Mir Akhtar Hussain for accused Ombir. I had stated in my statement under section 161CrPC, that 'the mobile phone' which was taken into police possession from accused Mohd Naim at the time of arrest, was given to Mohd. Naim. (Confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. now Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I had stated in my statement under section 161CrPC that "Vipin Gupta had asked him to collect the assignment at 7.00 P.M. (Confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. now Ex. PW18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I do not recollect whether I had stated in my statement under section 161CrPC that SI Manjeet, HC Manoj were also in the raising party. Vol. That there is no requirement of mentioning the name of SI Manjeet, he being the IO. It is wrong to suggest that I have stated the name of Ct. Manoj as member of raiding party because all the proceedings were conducted in the PS and Ct. Manoj was present there. I had stated in my statement under section 161Cr.PC that "Before proceeding, SI Manjit prepared a dummy packet, allegedly to have been containing fake currency notes. Before starting from ouroffice, we made Mohd. Naqim to make another ;call to Vipin Gupta and it was stated by Vipin Gupta that he has already arranged an amount of Rs.25,000/ and would be arranging the remaining amount and would reach at the determined place. We reached near Aggarwal Sweets at about 6.30 - 6.45 P.M. IO S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 24 of 102 requested some public persons to join the investigation but none come forward. We waited for considerable period of time as it was assured by Vipin Gupta to reach at the place" (Confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. now Ex. PW18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I had stated in my statement to the IO that Mohd. Nahim has disclosed that his associate Vipin Gupta is in Delhi. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 to where it is not so recorded. I had stated in my statement U/s 161 Cr. PC to the IO that Mobile phone which was taken into police possession from accused Mohd. Nahim at the time of his arrest was given back to accused Md. Nahin. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I had stated in my statement U/s 161 Cr. PC that accused Vipin Gupta was asked by Md. Nahim to collect the assignment at 7.00 pm. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I had stated in my statement to the IO regarding preparation of a dummy packet containing fake currency note. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I have already stated to the IO regarding Md. Nahim making another call to Vipin Vupta that an amount of Rs. 25,000/ has already been arranged by Vipin Gupta and for arrangement of another amount. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. We reached at the Aggarwal Sweets at around 5.30 5.45 pm. I have already mentioned in my statement U/s 161 Cr. PC regarding the IO requesting public persons to join the investigation and they being not joining the same. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I do not know how many notes have been kept by the IO in the dummy packet. It is incorrect to suggest that the neither the dummy packet was prepared in my presence nor it was shown to me. The IO prepared the dummy packet I do not know the name of the person who was present at the time of preparation. It is correct that I was present in the office at the time the dummy packet was prepared by the IO. I do not know from where the IO has arranged for the fake currency note or the content of the dummy packet. The dummy packet was not opened before me. To my remembrancer the dummy packet was made of newspaper binding. I do not remember the fact regarding the newspaper being a Hindi paper or English paper. It is correct that I did not know the content of the dummy packet. It is correct that I do not know whether the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 25 of 102 dummy packet contained actual or fake currency. I did not see the dummy packet after the day of raid till today. It is correct that my signatures were not taken on dummy packet either at the time of preparation or at the time of its seizure. It is correct to suggest that I do not know the content of the dummy packet. I have already stated in my statement u/s 161 Cr. PC that Md. Nahim identified the two accused persons. Confronted with statement Ex. PW 18/D4 X1 where it is not so recorded. I do not remember whether I have stated in my statement U/s 161 Cr. PC that the dummy packet was handed over by Md. Nahim to Ombir. At this stage, witness is shown his statement U/s 161 Cr. PC. The witness admits that the same has not been mentioned. It is correct to suggest that Md. Nahim did not hand over any packet to Ombir. Ombir was wearing pant shirt the colour of which I do not remember. I do not remember from which pocket of accused Ombir the fake currency note were recovered. Vol. The personal search of the accused was taken by the IO. There was recovery of some change from his pocket but I do not remember the amount. I do not remember the denomination thereof. I do not have any memory loss disease. Since major part of the recovery proceedings was done by the IO the minor details have been forgotten by me due to lapse of time. There was a recovery of two fake currency notes of denomination Rs. 500/. It is wrong to suggest that I did not deliberately take care of remembering the recovery of actual notes though I remember the recovery of fake currency notes. It is incorrect to suggest that there has been absolutely no recovery from any of the accused and the entire recovery proceedings have been drawn in the PS. I do not remember whether the fake currency notes were kept with other currency notes on the person of accused Ombir. I do not remember whether the recovery was affected as such from the mixed material or separately kept. It is correct to suggest that I do not remember the recovery of fake currency and actual currency from which pocket of the accused. Vol. I may not be remembering the exact location of the pocket but the fake currency and actual currency were kept together in pocket. It is correct that I do not know the colour of the trouser, Pant, or Jeans worn by the accused. The recovery memos of the fake currency and actual currency were prepared separately. The IO has checked and informed the raiding party about the recovery of fake currency. It is wrong to suggest that I do not remember the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 26 of 102 material details regarding the recovery including the recovery of fake currency as there was no recovery of fake currency from the person of accused at all. I do not remember whether the dummy packet was opened before me in the Court. IO has recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ombir. I do not remember who else except me signed the disclosure statement. I do not remember who else except me signed the recovery memo and personal search memo. We left the Crime Branch at about 4.30 5.00 pm. The accused persons came to the spot at about 10.00 10.30 pm. It took around two - two and a half hour on the spot where after we went to Rohini. The IO did not ask the owner/Manager of Aggarwal Sweets or the customers to join the proceedings. The proceedings were done in open. I cannot say whether the workers/manager of Aggarwal Sweets were watching the same. The public did not gather on the spot after accused were apprehended. There may be public gazers watching the proceedings but we were busy in our work. We had seen the staff of Aggarwal Sweets during our waiting at the spot. I cannot identify the workers or other persons if they are mixed with other people. It is wrong to suggest that I cannot identify any of them since no proceedings have ever taken place in front of Aggarwal Sweets. I knew the name of accused before proceedings to the spot. The same was known because of telephonic conversation between Md. Nahim and Vipin Gupta and Vipin Gupta told Nahim that Ombir is coming with him. The content of the telephonic conversation was told to me by Mohd. Nahim. It is wrong to suggest that I knew the name of Ombir because he was lifted one day prior to the day of incident and was kept in illegal custody. It is wrong to suggest that I did not join recovery proceedings at all. It is wrong to suggest that there has been absolutely no recovery from the persons of accused Ombir and the same has been planted. It is wrong to suggest that the entire proceeding have been drawn at PS. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely only to strengthen the false case prepared by IO.

XXXXXXX by Ld Cl Sh Raiz Mohd for accused Shan Mohd and Mohd Nahim. I came to know about the information regarding Bhura, who is a running a notorious gang in UP and who supplied the fake currency notes in Delhi in the first week of June, 2009. The team Incharge Inspector Ashok and SI Manjit had told me the said information. There were about 1415 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 27 of 102 members in our team when the information was discussed between us and all the members were instructed to develop the information as per the instruction and the said instruction was given by Team Incharge Inspector Ashok Sharma. I did not mount technical surveillance by tracking the telephone numbers of the members of Bhura gang. On 01.07.2009, I was present in the office of Crime Branch, Chanayaka Puri. At about 2.00 pm when this secret information was conveyed to me regarding the fact that two members of Bhura gang would come near Metro Station Rajouri Garden with fake currency and would deliver the same by use of word "chamra" . It is correct that word Chamra did not come to my knowledge before 1.7.2009. The briefing of secret information was done by Inspector Ashok Sharma and SI Manjit Tomar. The vehicle TATA Qualis was an official vehicle, which was used by the raiding party. It is correct that no public person from residential colony and from shops were asked to join the raiding party . I do not know whether the IO has manage to join a public witness as a decoy customer. It is correct that in my presence, the IO did not give any genuine currency to HC Subodh Kumar for dealing with the accused persons. The position was not taken by the raiding party near the metro piller. It is correct that in my presence the IO did not call any person nearby from the Mall to join the raiding party and the proceedings thereof. The vehicle was parked by us on the Mall side. The place were position was taken was about half a KM from Vishal Cinema. It is correct that it is a main road. I have not seen the secret informer pointing out towards the accused. The shadow witness was walking about 510 ft from decoy customer. The deal between the decoy customer and accused persons was done from a place which was about 50 steps from our position at shopping mall. The place were the deal was struck was near metro station and our position was in western side of Metro Station. It took about 34 minutes when the deal was struck between HC Subodh and accused persons. It is correct that the conversation between the HC Subodh and accused persons were not within our hearing. I do not know which police official physically apprehended accused Shan Mohd and same is my reply about the apprehension of accused Mohd Naim. Vol entire raiding team surrounded both the accused persons. The accused persons were search at the place of their apprehension i.e near metro station. I do not remember if I S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 28 of 102 had signed as a witness on the sealed pullandas mark A and B, prepared at the spot. First of all the search of accused Shan Mohd was conducted. The accused persons were apprehended at 7.15 pm . The ruqqa was sent by the IO at about 9.00 pm through Ct Sanjay for registration of the FIR and he came at the spot at about 12.30 AM. Between the period of sending the ruqqa and receiving of the copy of FIR, the accused persons namely Shan Mohd and Mohd Naim were interrogated and both were formerly arrested by the IO and third accused Mohd Sharukh was arrested at about 11.40 pm. Accused Mohd Sharukh was apprehended at about 11.20 11.30 pm. The third accused was apprehended by the IO. The informer left the spot but I cannot tell the exact time of his leaving. Vol informer left the spot at the time of apprehension of accused Shan Mohd and Mohd Naim. I do not remember if I had signed as a witness on the pullanda mark C prepared at the spot. I do not remember if the IO has shown the position of the Qualish vehicle parked in the site plan, prepared by the IO. The position of the member of the raiding team were shown in the site plan. The statement of HC Subodh and HC Rishipal were recorded by the IO at the spot. My statement was recorded in the office of Crime Branch on 2.7.2009 when the raiding party came back in the office of Crime Branch. The accused persons were kept in the custody of the staff in the office of Crime Branch and were not sent to lock up in a nearby P.S. On 04.07.2009, I had joined the investigation of this case again at about 8/9 AM . I do not remember if the accused persons were sent to lock up of nearby P.S. Vol the accused persons were remained in the custody of Police staff of crime branch in the office till 4.7.2009. It is correct that accused Shan Mohd had not disclosed the name and residence of his Mausi Smt Zaitoon where he allegedly kept a suitcase containing fake Indian Currency notes. Same is my reply on the dates 2.7.2009 and 3.7.2009. I do not know from whom the permission was obtained in order to proceed and raid the place as disclosed by accused Shan Mohd in his disclosure statement dt 4.7.2009. Vol it was sent through Inspector Incharge Ashok Sharma. On 4.7.2009 I alongwith Inspector Ashok Sharma and other staff left for village Tazpur, Distt Bullandshar UP at about 10.30/11.00 am in official vehicle Qualish and Private Santro car. I was in the Santro Car. The accused was in official vehicle, Qualish. It is correct that entry was not made in my presence regarding the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 29 of 102 leaving of the raiding party alongwith accused Shan Mohd to village Tazpur, Bullandshar UP. We reached village Tazpur at about 34 PM. The vehicles were parked on the road, near the house of Mausi of accused Shan Mohd. No DD entry about arrival of the team was made in the Local P.S . Again said if IO made any such entry in the Local P.S Vol we took assistance from the local P.S by way of written request given by the IO at PS Dehat, Bullandshar UP. The house of Mausi of the accused was about 45 km away from the P.S Dehat, Bullandshar. The Pardhan of the village was not called by the IO. I do not remember the names of the neighbourers from whom the whereabouts of Mausi of accused Shan Mohd was asked. The secret informers were deployed with the assistance of local police to keep watch on Zaitoon . I do not remember if IO had given his contact number to the informer."

37. PW19 Inspector Manjeet Tomar has deposed as under :

"On 01.07.2009, I was posted at ISC, Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri, Delhi. On that day at about 02:00 PM, I received a secret information from the secret informer that two persons namely Naim and Shan Mohd. likely to come near Rajouri Garden, Metro Station to deliver fake currency. These persons used to use the word 'Chamda' in lieu of fake currency notes. This information was passed on to the senior officers, who directed to initiate necessary action. The secret information was reduced into writing in the form of DD No.8 at about 02:30 Pm. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted, consisting of myself, Insp. Ashok Sharma, SI Ram Avtar, ASI Mahender Singh, HC Satpal, HC Surender, HC Rishipal, HC Subodh, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Sanjay including the secret informer. At about 05:00 PM, we all the police officials made our departure from our office, in a govt. vehicle Qualis and one private motorcycle. We reached near Rajouri Garden Metro Station at about 06:00 PM. 67 public persons requested to join the raiding party by telling the facts of the secret information but none joined the raiding party. HC Subodh was deputed as a decoy customer. I conducted the search of HC Subodh and prepared memo to this effect vide Ex.PW3/A, which bears my signatures at point C. All the articles which were with HC Subodh were given to HC Satpal.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 30 of 102 HC Rishipal was deployed as shadow witness. At about 07:10 PM, the secret informer pointed towards two persons who were coming from Vishal Cinema side and stated that they are the same persons who deals in fake currency notes. HC Subodh had conversations with these two persons and after some time, he gave predetermined signal. We all the police officials apprehended both the accused persons. After apprehending both the accused, they both were informed that they have been apprehended on the information that they are in possession of fake currency notes. We offered our search before them but they denied to take our search.

I conducted search of one of the accused whose name revealed as Shan Mohd. on interrogation. From the back right side pocket of the pant of Shan Mohd. 40 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered and from its appearance the notes appeared to be fake notes. I noted down the numbers of these 40 currency notes on a paper in the form of seizure memo vide Ex.PW18/A, which bears my signatures at point B. I kept these 40 fake currency notes in a transparent polythene and it was tied with the help of tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and he parcel was given mark A. I also conducted search of other accused whose name later on revealed as Mohd. Naim @ Sajid. From the front right side pocket of his jeans pant, 36 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered and on appearance these noes also appeared to be fake. I prepared seizure memo of the fake currency notes, kept the same in a separate transparent polythene, tied with the tape and sealed with the seal of MT and this parcel was given mark B. the currency notes were taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW18/B, which bears my signatures at point B. Thereafter, I prepared tehrir Ex.PW19/A, gave the same to Ct. Sanjay for getting the case registered. After some time at about 10:45 PM, Ct Sanjay informed from Crime Branch PS that FIR number 104/09 is being recorded with regard to the present case. Both the accused persons were interrogated by SI Manjit and they both disclosed the name of their third associate i.e. Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota @ Ash Mohd. After some time at about 11:30 PM, Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota came towards Metro Station and both the accused Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Naim pointed towards their associates and stated that he was Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 31 of 102 Third accused namely Mohd. Sharukh @ Chota was overpowered and I conducted his search and from the right side pocket of his pant, 15 fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. I prepared the seizure memo of the said 15 fake currency notes, kept the same in another transparent polythene, tied with tape, affixed the seal of MT and it was given mark C and the parcel was taken into possession through seizure memo Ex.PW18/C which bears my signatures at point C. I interrogated all the three accused persons and later on all the three accused persons were arrested by the me and I prepared their arrest memo and personal search memo, vide Ex.PW18/D, E, F, G, H and I which bear my signatures at point B. During search of accused Mohd. Naim one Eticket along with fine receipt of Railway was also recovered and it was also seized through a seizure memo Ex.PW19/C, bears my signatures at point A. At about 12:30 in the night, Ct. Sanjay came at the spot and produced the copy of the FIR and original tehrir before me. I recorded statement of HC Rishipal and HC Subodh Kumar. Thereafter, we all the police officials went to PS Crime Branch. Case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused persons were brought to the Crime Branch office, Chanakya Puri. I recorded statement of police officials under section 161 Cr.p.C. IO also interrogated accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements of Accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Sharukh, vide Ex.PW18/J,K and L, which bear my signatures at point B. I also recorded statement of Insp. Ashok and my statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day, accused persons were produced before the concerned court and all the three accused persons were taken on police remand till 10.07.2009. We came back to our office along with the accused persons and all the three accused persons were sustainly interrogated.

On 04.07.2009, accused Shan Mohd. disclosed that he along with Mohd. Naim brought fake currency notes from Nepal and they have kept the fake currency notes in a suitcase which they had kept at one of their relative namely Smt. Jetun, Khala of accused Shan Mohd, a resident of Village Tajpur, near Bulandsahar, U.P. I recorded supplementary disclosure statement of Shan Mohd. vide Ex.PW18/M, which bears my signatures at point B. Senior officers were apprised regarding the same, permission was S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 32 of 102 obtained to proceed to the aforesaid place and accordingly, a team consisting of myself, one lady Ct. Lata, SI Manjit, Insp. Ashok Sharma, ASI Mahender Singh, ASI Surender (driver), HC Satyapal, Ct. Manoj and other police officials (total 11 police officials), proceeded from our office after making departure entry for going to aforesaid place in govt. qualis vehicle besides private car of Insp. Ashok. We reached at Chowki Choraha, Bulandsahar, sought assistance from the local police officials namely SI Gyanesh, incharge, PP and two local police officials were deputed to join the investigation. Then we reached to village Tajpur where accused Shan Mohd. pointed his Khala's house. The house was found lock. We tried to ascertain from the neighbourers but nothing could be ascertained. Sources were deployed with the help of local police officials and they were directed to inform as and when they have any clue regarding Smt. Jetun. Thereafter, we went to Chowki Choraha, Bulandsahar. Local police officials were relieved there itself. Thereafter, we came back to Delhi. On the next day morning, we all the aforesaid police officials along with lady Ct. Rajoliya again went at village Tajpur after taking the local police officials, Ms. Jetun was found present at her residence and she was identified by accused Shan Mohd. to whom he had given the suitcase containing fake currency notes. Accused Shan Mohd. asked Smt. Jetun to produced green colour suitcase which he had given to her. Initially, Smt. Jetun was hesitating but when accused Shan Mohd. stated that the suitcase is containing his clothes, then she produced the suitcase from the inner side room. I checked the suitcase and it was containing 67 clothes i.e. pant, Tshirt, towel etc. It was also found containing biscuit and noodles packets and both these articles were made in Nepal. Accused Shan Mohd. was asked as to where were the fake currency notes in that suitcase and accused Shan Mohd. stated that a special cavity box is made inside the suitcase and the said box is made at the time when the suitcase is in the process of manufacturing itself and by a simple look, one cannot ascertain anything regarding cavity box. The layer of the cavity box got cut with the help of blade and currency notes were found inside that cavity box. All the currency notes were taken out from the cavity box and I prepared the seizure memo of the said counterfeit Indian currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ (total Rs.10,11,500/). 26 bundles were prepared by me S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 33 of 102 as per the seizure memo, and all the 26 bundles were kept in a bigger pulanda, it was sealed with the seal of MT and the same was taken into possession Ex.PW1/A, which bears my signatures at point D and this parcel was given mark D. The suitcase containing clothes was also taken into possession and it was also tied with the help of white Patti and it was also sealed with the seal of MT and the suitcase was also taken into possession through same seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. I recorded statement of Smt. Jetun, SI Gyanesh and other police officials. Thereafter, we all the police officials came to Chowki Bhud Choraha, Bulandsahar, local police officials were relieved at about 07:30 Pm and we reached Crime Branch PS Delhi. Case property was deposited int he malkhana and thereafter we went to office. On 06.07.2009, accused Mohd. Naim was interrogated and IO recorded his supplementary disclosure statement vide Ex.PW18/N which bears my signatures at point B, wherein he disclosed regarding presence of his associate namely Vipin Gupta in Delhi and stated that after taking 50%55% original currency notes, they used to give 100% fake currency notes. Mohd. Naim further disclosed that he was residing in a tenanted room situated in the area of Rohini and would come near Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangir Puri Metro Station, Delhi and he further stated that he used to meet Vipin Gupta near Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangirpuri and he could call Vipin on telephone. The mobile phone which was taken into police possession from accused Mohd. Naim at the time of his arrest, was given to Mohd. Naim and he was asked to make a call to coaccused Vipin Gupta and accordingly, he made a call to Vipin Gupta and asked him to collect the assignment at 07:00 PM at Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted consisting of myself, SI Manjit, HC Satyapal, Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Manoj and other police officials and we all the police officials along with accused Mohd. Naim proceeded in a govt. qualis. Before proceeding, I prepared a dummy packet, allegedly to have been containing blank white papers. We reached near Aggarwal Sweets at about 06:0006:30 PM. I requested some public persons to join the investigation but none come forward. We waited for considerable period of time as it was assured by Vipin Gupta to reach at the place. At about 10:45 PM, two persons were found coming from Jahangirpuri metro station side on a motorcycle No. DL4S XY4 7415 of black colour Bajaj S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 34 of 102 Boxer and motorcycle was stopped at Aggarwal Sweets. HC Satpal was deputed with accused Mohd. Naim and he was directed to give signal after the deal was struck. We reaming police officials have taken our positions. Accused Mohd. Naim identified those two persons. One person whose name later on revealed as Ombir was having a Pithoo Bag of Khaki Colour at his back and he had given the said bag, stated to have been containing the amount and he gave the said bag to Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Naim gave the dummy packet to Ombir, which we had given to Mohd. Naim. HC Satpal gave predetermined signal and we overpowered both the persons and on interrogation their names revealed as Ombir and Vipin Gupta. I checked the Pithoo Bag and it was found containing an amount of Rs.25,000/ i.e. two packets of Rs.100/ denomination and five currency notes of Rs.1000/ denomination. All these currency notes were original Indian currency notes. I prepared the memo of these currency notes, dummy packet and the pithoo bag vide memo Ex.PW12/A which bears my signatures at point C. I also conducted search of Vipin Gupta and four fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. I kept these fake currency notes in a transparent polythene, tied with the tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and it was given mark E and was taken into possession vide Ex.PW18/O, which bears my signatures at point B. I also conducted search of Ombir and two fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination were recovered. I kept these fake currency notes in a transparent polythene, tied with the tape and it was sealed with the seal of MT and it was given mark F and was taken into possession vide Ex.PW18/P, which bears my signatures at point B. Both the accused persons were arrested, I prepared their arrest memo and personal search memo vide Ex.PW18/Q, R, S and T which bear my signatures at point B. I interrogated both the accused persons, recorded their disclosure statements, vide Ex.PW18/U and V, which bears my signatures at point B. Accused Vipin Gupta stated that he has hired one flat situated in the area of Rohini, I do not remember the sector at this moment. Where he had kept one computer, scanner and printer and scanning is being undertaken with the help of their friends namely Ramu and other and with their help, they used to circulate the fake currency notes in the market. Thereafter, we all the police officials had taken all the aforesaid address, that flat was found locked and it was opened by accused Vipin S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 35 of 102 Gupta, we entered inside the Flat and from there, one computer, one printer, one scanner along with cord were taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/W, which bears my signatures at point C. All these articles were sealed with the seal of MT. The motorcycle on which both the accused persons came, was seized vide Ex.PW18/X, which bears my signatures at point B. Thereafter, we came back to crime branch PS, the case property was deposited in the malkhana, then we came back to our office along with the accused, where I recorded statement of witnesses. On the next day, accused persons were produced before the concerned court and they were also taken on PC till 10th. I identify all the accused persons present in the court. On 26.07.2009, SI Ram Avtar along with HC Surender and Ct. Manoj went Nasik Printing Press and deposited the case property there and obtained receipts from there. They also obtained the result and gave the same to me after their arrival at Delhi. I can identify the case property if shown to me. I called Mr. Karan, E Ticket clerk, inquired from him, taken the record from him and recorded his statement. I also called the owner of the aforesaid motorcycle who stated that he gave his motorcycle to Vipin at his asking. I recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, challan was prepared. I identify all the accused persons who were arrested by me. They are present before the court. I have seen the site plan, placed on the judicial file. The same is Ex.PW19/B. It was prepared by me at the spot. I can identify the case property if shown to me.

At this stage, MHC(M) produced the case property i.e. one sealed parcel with the seal of court. Parcel is got opened and it is found containing one transparent polythene on which mark A is written, it contains 40 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each.

It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark B is written, it contains 36 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each.

It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark C is written, it contains 15 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each.

It also found containing one cartoon box polythene, it contains total amount of Rs.10,11,500/ in Rs.500/ denomination each. It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark E is written, it contains 4 currency notes of Rs.500/ S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 36 of 102 denomination each.

It also found containing one transparent polythene on which mark F is written, it contains 2 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each.

At this stage, MHC(M) also produced one suitcase some clothes. This suitcase is having now a open box cavity. MHC(M) also produced one scanner, CPU containing other accessories of computer and printer duly sealed and one monitor without seal. At this stage, MHC(M) stated that he has also brought the aforesaid motorcycle in question which is kept in Tata 407 which is parked in the court premises and at this stage, Ld. Counsel and the witness proceeded to the parking and after coming back from there witness stated that I have seen the motorcycle Black colour Bajaj motorcycle which is kept in the Tata407. This is the same motorcycle on which accused Vipin and Ombir came and this is the same motorcycle which I had taken into my possession through seizure memo.

At this stage, Ld. Defence counsel stated that number on the back side number plate of the motorcycle are not visible and the colour of the motorcycle is black and silver and it is a motorcycle CT100, make Bajaj.

The case property has already been exhibited in the deposition of PW12 HC Satyapal as Ex.PWPW3/A to G, Ex.PW3/H, J, K, L. XXX by Sh. Riyaz Mohd., ld. Counsel for accused Shan Mohd, Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Muslim.

SI Ram Avtar was present in my room when I received secret information. The secret informer also stated the description of the accused persons as short height and of lean and thin body. The secret informer stated that accused would come at about 07 07:30 Pm. I do not remember if the description was mentioned in the DD No.8, but the time and destination were mentioned. We did not deploy the police officials near Rajouri Garden Metro Station, in advance. We also made our departure entry at our office and mentioned our destination. The secret informer was sitting beside me at the backseat of govt. vehicle. HC Rishipal and HC Subodh were on the motorcycle. We have asked only passersby to join the investigation. We parked our vehicle on the side of the road. We did not ask the nearby shopkeepers or the persons employed at the parking of the metro station to join the investigation. No independent public persons was arranged as decoy customer. Vishal Cinema is about 300 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 37 of 102 400 metres far from metro station.

I tried to arrange a public person to be deputed as decoy customer near metro Station Rajouri Garden, but nobody agreed. I do not try to arrange public person as decoy customer from Vishal Cinema. The Vishal Cinema is situated 300400 metres far from the spot but nobody was sent there to arrange two independent public witnesses to join the raiding party. HC Subodh was deputed as a decoy customer at the spot by me. No genuine currency note was given to HC Subodh in order to deal with the accused persons. The shadow witness went to the spot after about 5/7 minutes of HC Subodh in order to deal with the accused persons. It is correct that no genuine currency note was given to shadow witness HC Rishipal in order to help the decoy customer to struck the deal with the accused persons. The informer pointed out towards the accused persons from a distance of 60/70 metres from the spot, while the accused persons were from the side of Vishal Cinema. The member of the raiding party were scattered in different positions. Informer was with me. We all were in civil uniform. We were having our service weapons. The decoy customer struck deal from a distance of 20/30 metres from our position. The vehicles were coming and going. I cannot not specify the specific place where the deal was struck between the accused persons and HC Subodh. I did not hear the conversation going on between the accused persons and decoy customer HC Subodh. We apprehended the accused persons after about 15 minutes of sending the decoy customer to the accused persons. We orally offered our search before the accused persons but they refused. They did not try to escape as we did not give them any chance to run away. The accused persons were searched at the spot while the vehicles were called there. I do not remember which member of the raiding party physically apprehended the accused Shan Mohd. first of all the search of the accused Shan Mohd. was conducted by me. After about 10 minutes, accused Mohd Naim was also searched by me. Both the accused persons were searched only once. The document pertaining to accused Shan Mohd. were prepared first and after completing the entire writing work pertaining to accused Shan Mohd., then I started the writing work pertaining to accused Mohd. Naim. The rukka was sent at about 9 PM through Ct. Sanjay. Again said, it might be at 09:30 PM and he returned at the spot with the formal copy of S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 38 of 102 FIR and Asal Tehrir at about 12:30 AM. During the period between the sending of rukka and receiving of the formal copy of FIR at 12:30 AM, only arrest memo was prepared. All the documents were written in my own handwriting. I did not obtain the signatures of the witnesses on the sealed pulandas who had signed the seizure memos. I had mentioned the position of the raiding party in the site plan prepared by me. However, I did not mention the position of decoy customer, shadow witness and accused persons at the time when the deal was struck between accused and us.

After the arrest both the accused persons were kept in our office and were not lodged in the lockup of any PS. We maintained DD register. I have mentioned in the DD that I alongwith Insp. Ashok Sharma and other staff alongwith accused Shan Mohd. left the office for villageTajpur, Buland Sahar, U.P. I did not file the said DD in the case file. We also made arrival entry at the local PP of VillageTajpur, Bulandsahar. I do not remember if the said DD is on record or not. We took three local police officials from the PP Budh Choraha. We did not call the Pardhan of the village or two other respected persons of the said village before conducting search of the house of Smt. Jaitun, the Khala of accused Shan Mohd. Vol. The house was found locked on 04.07.2009 in the noon hours. On 05.07.2009, I again took the accused form our office in order to conduct the search of the house of Smt. Jaitun at Tajpur, Bulandsahar. Again I made DD entry in our registered maintained at our office regarding the factum of our departure for Tajpur Village alongwith accused Shan Mohd. and other members of the raiding party. I also do not remember if the said DD is on court file or not. I did not send any police official to call the Pardhan or two other respected persons of the village on 05.07.2009 before conducting search of the house of Smt. Jaitun. Vol. We only requested the crowd which was gathered at our arrival. The house of Jaitun was two storey. I had not called anybody from anywhere to join the raid before conducting the search of the house. I never searched the house of Smt. Jaitun. Vol. Smt. Jaitun herself produced the bag, on being confronted with accused Shan Mohd. I did not obtain the signatures of Smt. Jaitun in the disclosure statement of accused Shan Mohd. Vol. Disclosure statement was already recorded at our office on 04.07.2009, hence there arises no question of getting her signatures on the disclosure S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 39 of 102 statement. Statements of local police officials were recorded at the house of Smt. Jaitun. I did not obtain the thumb impression of Smt. Jaitun on the sealed pulanda prepared by me at her house nor signatures of any police officials either of local police or from our staff were obtained on the sealed pulanda. The members of the police party were outside the gate of the house of Smt. Jaitun as such I cannot tell as to from where Smt. Jaitun took the suitcase. Local police also signed the seizure memos prepared by me. I did not check if the MHC(M) had made correct entry in column no. 4 of Register no. 19 regarding the deposit of the case property in the sealed condition. It is wrong to suggest that we were not having any information about the two accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that no raiding party was organized nor any such raid was conducted as deposed by me near Vishal Cinema. It is wrong to suggest that no decoy customer or shadow witness ever went to accused persons in order to deal with them. It is wrong to suggest that all the writing work was done while sitting in our office. It is wrong to suggest that signatures of the accused persons were obtained on the blank papers in order to manipulate the false evidence against them. It is wrong to suggest that neither of the accused persons made any disclosure statement. It is wrong to suggest that nothing was recovered from both the accused persons and the same was planted on them in order to falsely implicate them in this false case. It is wrong to suggest that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. on 05.7.2009 from the house of Smt. Jaitun or that we never visited the house of Smt. Jaitun. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely being official witness.

XXX by Sh. I.A. Alvi, Ld. counsel for accused Sharukh and Vipin.

I did not carry out any videography at the spot when accused Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd. and Sharukh were apprehended. I also did not provide any voice recorder in order to record conversation between the accused persons and the decoy witness. Accused Sharukh was arrested when he was coming from the side of Vishal Cinema. He was alone at that time. I had completed all the writing work relating to accused Shan Mohd and Naim when accused Sharukh was apprehended. We also made request from passersby to join the investigation in relation to accused Sharukh but none agreed. Nobody was specifically S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 40 of 102 called form the nearby shops to join investigation. Ct. Sanjay was not reached at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and tehrir when the accused Sharukh was arrested in this case. The recovery memo regarding fake currency notes allegedly recovered from accused Sharukh has already been prepared by me at the spot when Ct. Sanjay reached at the spot with copy of the FIR. I do not remember whether I recorded the disclosure statement of accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim before apprehending the accused Sharukh. Even I cannot say whether the disclosure statement of all the three accused were recorded together after arresting all of them. The detailed disclosure statements of the accused persons namely Mohd. Sharukh, Naim and Sharukh were recorded at the office. However, some enquiries were made at the spot itself.

I did not fill any FSL/CFSL form at the spot or at the office before depositing the case property. We reached alongwith the case property at PS Crime Branch, Nehru Place and deposited the case property i.e. three pulandas at about 2 AM on 02.07.2009. I myself deposited the case property with Malkhana. Entry was also made in my presence. I did not sign the MHC(M) Register at the time of depositing of case property. We reached our office at Chankyapuri at about 3:30/4:00 AM. I recorded disclosure statement of Mohd. Naim on 02.07.2009. It is correct that in the aforesaid disclosure statement, Mohd. Naim did not disclose anything about accused Vipin Gupta. He disclosed that he can get arrested the person from Delhi to whom he was dealing. I made enquiries from accused Naim regarding the person to whom he was dealing in Delhi but nobody was arrested during this period at his instance. Again a supplementary statement of accused Naim was recorded on 06.07.2009 and thereafter accused Vipin Gupta was arrested. It is correct that no other disclosure statement was given by accused Mohd. Naim between 02.07.2009 to 06.07.2009. I alongwith SI Ram Avtar, HC Satpal, Ct. Manoj and other police officials reached near Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangirpuri Metro Station at about 6/6:30 PM on 06.07.2009. I provided mobile phones to accused Mohd. Naim and got a call to Vipin Gupta in the day time on 06.07.2009. However, I cannot tell the exact time when the telephone call was made to accused Vipin Gupta. I did not arrange public person from the area of our office to join the investigation. However, I requested the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 41 of 102 passersby near Jahangirpuri Metro Station but nobody agreed. I did not call the owner/employee of Aggarwal Sweets to join the investigation. I did not get the videography of the transaction between accused Naim and Vipin Gupta at Jahangirpuri Metro Station. Writing work was done while sitting in the vehicle upto 11:30 PM. It is correct that the area from where the accused Vipin Gupta was arrested is a thickly populated area and passersby used to pass from there. HC Satpal was deputed with accused Naim but no instructions were given to hear the conversation. Raiding party took the position in a scattered manner. The accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir came from the front side of Aggarwal Sweets.

The flat from where computer scanner etc. were recovered is at a distance of 6/7 Km from the spot. It is correct that computer, scanner etc. recovered from the flat is not related to the present case or that of recovery of Indian fake currency notes. Recovery memos regarding the recovery of fake currency notes from accused Vipin Gupta was prepared by me. Pulandas/case property relating to accused Vipin and Ombir were deposited at PS Crime Branch, Nehru Place on the intervening night of 6/7.07.2009 at about 2/2:30 AM. It is correct that no FSL form was filled up at the spot or thereafter before depositing the case property. I do not remember whether I handed over the seal after use to the other police official or not.

I did not make any request to the senior officer to transfer the investigation from me as I was a raiding officer in this case. Even senior officer did not transfer of this case from me to any other competent officer of the PS. It is wrong to suggest that accused Sharukh and Vipin were not arrested the place as stated by me or that their signatures were obtained on the disclosure statement and the recovery memo under duress and pressure It is wrong to suggest that no fake currency notes were recovered from the possession of accused Sharukh and Vipin or that recovery was manipulated and planted against the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that accused Vipin Gupta was not arrested in the manner as deposed by me. It is wrong to suggest that case property was not deposited with Malkhana on 02.07.2009.

It is wrong to suggest that evidence has been created against the accused persons and they are falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 42 of 102 wrong to suggest that all the writing work was conducted at our office or that no Pitthu bag was recovered containing FICN. XXX by Sh. Pankaj Verma and Sh.R.K. Verma, Ld. counsel for accused Ombir.

Raiding party was constituted on 06.07.2009 for accused Ombir. I cannot tell the number, owner of the motorcycle on which I reached at the spot. It is correct that two members of our raiding party did come on this motorcycle. I do not remember their names at this moment. It is wrong to suggest that there was no such motorcycle or it was not used by any of them for reaching at the spot. We reached at spot 66:30 Pm. I had narrated regarding the information to the other member of the raiding party i.e. SI Ram Avtar and other members, orally. Accused persons came on the motorcycle at about 1010:30 PM. Accused Naim was in the custody of HC Satpal, standing in the open area. Other members of the raiding party were standing at some distance in scattered position. It is correct that it was dark at that time. Vol. There were light near that place. Aggarwal Sweets shop was opened at that time. No barricade was put on the road. No password was given to accused Naim by me, to identify the accused Ombir on their arrival. Public persons were requested to join the investigation but they refused. I did not give any written notice to public persons to join the investigation. I did not note down their names, descriptions and addresses. It is wrong to suggest that neither I requested public person nor I made any effort to join the public person. The IO kit was with me and I used to keep the same in the vehicle. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ombir did not come on motorcycle. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ombir was taken from his residence and was falsely implicated in the present case. It is correct that I recorded supplementary statement of accused Naim on 06.07.2009. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. Two fake currency notes were recovered from the purse of accused Ombir. I conducted his personal search in the presence of other members of raiding party. SI Ram Avtar was the witness of the document. It is wrong to suggest that that no fake currency notes were recovered from accused Ombir or that I did not carry out any personal search. I do not know if one draws money from the ATM, there are possibilities of getting FICN from the ATM. I do not remember if Ombir stated to me that he was doing some service. I do not remember if how many S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 43 of 102 original currency notes were there in the purse, besides other papers/documents etc. the purse might have been taken into possession in the personal search. It is wrong to suggest that no such purse was taken or that I am deposing falsely."

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

38. After closing the prosecution evidence statement of all the accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they pleaded their innocence stating that nothing has been recovered from them or their instances. It is also pleaded that entire prosecution case based on fabricated/concocted false story and alleged recovery have been planted. However, none of the accused lead any defence evidence in their defence.

39. Thereafter, I heard final arguments on behalf of all the accused persons as well as State. The argument of the parties are as under :

40. (i) On behalf of accused Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Naim it is vehemently argued that PW3 ASI Subodh Kumar was examined as decoy customer to deal with accused Mohd. Naim and Shanu by using the word "Chamra" but this story is not probable as fake currency cannot be handed over to a stranger on asking by using word "Chamra Doge" to the unknown fellow. Further PW3 in his statement S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 44 of 102 u/s. 161 Cr.PC only stated the word "deal" and not used word "Chamra Doge". Hence, it is argued that there was no such deal as deposed by PW3 Subodh. Therefore, he is a planted witness.

(ii) It is further argued that both the accused persons are falsely implicated into present case by lifting from their houses by planting counterfeit currency as both the accused persons were already involve in similar offence and police was having huge fake currency.

(iii) It is also argued that no independent public person was made witness to the recovery despite availability. The explanation given by IO for non joining of public witness is improbable in usual course of human conduct.

(iv) It is also argued that as per prosecution story rukka was send at 9:00 pm wherein the fact of seizure memo A,B and C qua recovery of fake currency is mentioned where as PW3 in his cross examination has admitted that seizure memo was prepared at about 11:3012 midnight. Hence, it is argued that FIR is "ante time".

(v) It is further argued that PW5 HC Rishi Pal who is examined as shadow witness and witness to the factum of recovery is a hearsay witness as whatever he deposited about the deal with the accused persons is a hearsay evidence as he himself had no deal with the accused persons. Hence, his testimony is hit by section 6 of Indian Evidence Act.

(vi) It is further argued that name of decoy customer at point 'A' in the S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 45 of 102 site plan not written. Hence, decoy customer is planted later on It is also argued that part A,B,C are not properly written in the site plan.

(vii) It is also argued that no details of government vehicle Qualis which was allegedly uses for raid provided. Even its log book showing the entry not proved on record. Even no number of said vehicle is mentioned in the site plan.

(viii) it is also vehemently argued that alleged recovery of fake currency from the house of PW6 Smt. Zaitoon is not made at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. as admitted by PW19 in cross examination . Therefore, it is further argued that as the alleged suit case was handed over by PW6, hence, sections 100, 165 & 166 Cr.PC are applicable. But said procedure of search and seizure not followed.

(ix) It is also vehemently argued that PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar is the complainant as well as IO which is not permissible in law. Hence at the strength of case law titled as "Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 2018 (4) JCC (NAR) 228 and Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 985" it is argued that entire case of prosecution goes and accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

(x) It is also argued that FSL report Ex.PW17/A has no evidential value and is not admissible in evidence as in the report there is no mention of any description of seal with which 6 polythene papers were sealed nor there is any mention about any FSL form. It is further argued that PW17 in his statement has not mentioned about his S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 46 of 102 qualification or his experience to discern between the genuine currency notes and fake currency notes. He just mentioned to be working as Work Manager in the currency note press but have not mentioned from when he is posted there. To substantiate his argument, Ld. Counsel relied the case law titled as "State of Himachel Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318".

(xi) It is also argued that since PW6 Zaitoon declared hostile and did not support the prosecution version the important link qua recovery at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. is missing.

41. (i) On behalf of accused Mohd. Shahrukh and Mohd. Muslim, besides addressing the above arguments, it is also argued that in the absence of corroboration of prosecution version from independent person under these circumstances that no sincere efforts was made by the IO to join the public witness create serious doubt regarding the alleged raid on subsequent recovery. It is also argued that no videography of the spot of raid at any point of time was made.

(ii) On behalf of accused Mohd. Muslim, it is argued that no recovery of any kind either from personal search or at the instance of accused affected. Even there is no evidence of conspiracy.

(iii) It is also argued on behalf of Mohd. Muslim that IO could not planted the fake currency as accused was arrested during the trial as initially he was P.O. S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 47 of 102

42. (i) On behalf of accused Ombir Singh, it is argued by Ld. Counsel that recovery and arrest of accused and consequent recovery near Aggarwal Sweets is not proved and hence false. It is further argued that a disclosure was made by coaccused Mohd. Naim on 02.07.2009 and the names of accused and coaccused Vipin Gupta were though mentioned in the said disclosure, but no efforts have been made by the Investigating Officer PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar to arrest any of them till 06.07.2009 when it is alleged that a supplementary disclosure statement was recorded. It is further argued that no explanation has come on record as to why for 05 days, no investigation or disclosure was got recorded by the IO of accused Mohd. Naim, which creates a serious doubt about supplementary disclosure statement obtained on 06.07.2009. It is further argued that the said fact even not mentioned in the remand application moved by IO for seeking remand of three accused persons, who were arrested on 01.07.2009. It is further argued that in the entire disclosure statement recorded on 06.07.2009 of accused Mohd. Naim, the name of accused Ombir not mentioned, only the name of accused Vipin Gupta is mentioned there. It is further argued that the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Naim and vipin gupta are not admissible in evidence at the strength of law laid down in case titled as Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar. AIR 1966 SC

119. S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 48 of 102

(ii)It is further argued that as per the prosecution case accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir stated to have gone on the spot by motorcycle bearing No. DL4SAY7415, which belongs to PW11 Gulab Singh S/o Moji Ram and this PW has given his age in the witness box as 20 years on 31.03.2010, however, record shows that the said motorcycle was purchased about 78 years back, hence, it is argued that at the time of registration of the vehicle PW11 was minor and no registration can be made as per law in his name. It is further argued that bare perusal of the seizure memo of the motorcycle shows that no keys of the said vehicle were seized. It is further argued that as deposed by PW12 Satya Pal that both the accused namely Vipin Gupta and Ombir were wearing helmet, but no such helmet has been seized as per seizure memo. It is further argued that even the seizure memo does not bear the signature of accused Ombir. It is further argued that PW11 during crossexamination has admitted that he has not stated to the police the name of accused Ombir accompanied with Vipin Gupta and Anand to take his motorcycle, but in the witness box he has improved his statement by mentioning the name of accused Ombir, which is a material improvement. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as Yudhishtir Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 CAR 247 (SC).

(iii) It is further argued that as admitted by PW12 HC Satya Pal, PW 18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO that S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 49 of 102 Aggarwal Sweets was opened at the time of raid but no efforts have been made by the IO to join any independent public witness from Aggarwal Sweets or nearby shops and this assumes importance when it is admitted by all these witnesses that on 06.07.2009 they had reached at the spot at about 6.00/6.30 pm, while the accused persons had come there at about 10.30 pm and IO was having sufficient time to call an independent person to join the proceedings. Hence, it is further argued that entire search and seizure at the spot is highly doubtful. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as Rattan Lal vs. State, 1987 (32) Delhi Law Times.

(iv)It is further argued that PW12 HC Satya Pal and PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar, both have deposed that dummy packet was prepared in their presence but surprisingly, PW18 has deposed that "it is correct that I did not know the contents of dummy packet. It is correct that I do not know whether the dummy packet contain actual or fake currency. I did not see the dummy packet from the date of raid till today. It is correct that I do not know the contents of the dummy packet". It is further argued that per contra, PW19 IO Manjeet Tomar has admitted that "he prepared a dummy packet containing blank white papers", therefore, by his own admission no fake currency notes were there in the alleged dummy packet, therefore, hence, there was no transactions or exchange of fake currency notes have taken place between coaccused Vipin and accused Mohd. Naim.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 50 of 102

(v) With regard to recovery of two currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination, it is argued that PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar has admitted that he was not remembering from which pocket of accused, the fake currency notes were recovered. It is further argued that the fake currency notes and actual currency notes were kept together in the pocket when the same was allegedly recovered by the IO. It is further argued that on the contrary, PW19 IO Manjeet Tomar and PW12 HC Satya Pal had stated that fake currency notes were recovered from the purse of accused Ombir. It is further argued that as per personal search memo Ex.PW18/S, one black colour purse was also recovered containing Rs.630/ along with other articles. Hence, it is argued that as per prosecution witnesses the fact is that two fake currency notes were found lying with the original currency notes, no knowledge can be attributed to accused Ombir with regard to the two fake currency notes. It is further argued that in these circumstances it cannot be attributed that accused was having reason to believe that two notes were fake or any mens rea as required to attract Section 489C. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as State (Delhi Admn) Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg, 1986 (1) RCR Page 142.

(vi) It is further argued that the apprehension of the accused on 06.07.2009 at 10.30 pm near Aggarwal Sweets is apparently false and fabricated. It is further argued that otherwise also that does not S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 51 of 102 connect the accused with the commission of offence under Section 489B IPC because no fake currency notes have been handed over to coaccused Vipin Gupta, hence, there is no application of Section 489C IPC or other provisions of IPC with regard to incident. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as Gurnam Singh Vs. State, Paragraph, 1992 (1) RCR page 661.

(vii) It is further argued that the testimony of PW4 MN Vijayan, Nodal Officer, qua proving CDRs of mobile phone bearing No. 9278064305 allegedly belonging to coaccused Vipin Gupta is of no use and cannot be read into evidence as no Certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act filed and proved on record.

(viii) It is further argued that investigations in the present case are biased, tainted and lop sided from the very inception. It is further argued that the entire investigation in this case is illegal as the secret information as per the admitted case of the prosecution was received by PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar and it was Manjeet Tomar who has further carried out investigation, arrested the accused persons, made the search and seizures and also on 06.07.2009 and investigation after registration of the FIR was assigned to him, conducted by him and filed the report u/s. 173 Cr.PC, which is not permissible in law. Hence, it is contended that accused persons are entitled for acquittal only on this count. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 2018(4) JCC (NAR) S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 52 of 102 228 and Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 985.

(ix) It is further argued that as admitted by the IO the seal of "MT" after use was kept by the IO himself and he has not given it to any witness including PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar. It is further argued that as admitted by PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar that he has not filled up any FSL form at the spot or thereafter, inter alia, meaning thereby that the link evidence is missing as well as the tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out in the present case. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as Sher Singh Walia Vs. State NCT Delhi, 2000 (2) JCC (Delhi) 538 and Pardeep Kumar Vs. State, 1989(2) Chd. Law Reporter.

(x) It is further argued that even the evidence of PW17 Parkash Sadasive Ughade is of no use to the prosecution as in his report Ex. PW17/A this witness has not mentioned about the number of two fake currency notes examined by him. It is also argued that there is no mention of any description of seal with which the alleged six polythene papers were sealed nor there is any mention of receipt of any FSL form along with the said parcels, hence, it cannot be said that what has been seized was in fact the same fake currency notes which were sent to Currency Press, Nasik. It is further argued that the report Ex.PW17/A is not a reliable report and cannot be acted upon because PW17 in his statement has not mentioned about his qualification or his experience to discern between the genuine currency notes and fake S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 53 of 102 currency notes. It is further argued that PW17 has just mentioned to be working as a Work Manager and even he has not mentioned since when he was posted in the Currency Note Press, Nasik. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the case titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 3318.

(xi) It is further argued that even no offence u/s. 489B IPC is proved against the accused as no ingredient of Section 489B are made out from the evidence come on record regarding sale or buy or receiving of any counterfeit currency notes or being used as a genuine notes doing its trafficking knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged.

In view of the above arguments, it is vehemently argued that it is a settled proposition of law that once the investigation is found to be biased and tainted then whole investigation is open to serious doubts and lacunae. It is also argued that the candid principle of law that the prosecution has to prove its case from beyond reasonable doubt and it is not the preponderance of probabilities, but the rule of law is that the case must be proved against the culprits and this whole distance has to be travelled by the prosecution from "may be true" to the "must be true". It is also argued that the mere fact that accused is not able to show his animosity with the police officials for involving him in a case shall not be a ground to convict him. To substantiate his arguments Ld. Counsel has relied the cases titled as State of A.P. Vs. S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 54 of 102 Punati Ramulu and Ors., 1994, SCC (Crl.), Balwant Singh Vs. State, 1976, Chandigarh Law Reporter, Kailash Gour & Ors. Vs. State of Assam, CRL. Appeal No. 1068/2006 and State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Kham Chand. Cr. A. 179 of 1979.

Therefore, in view of the above arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that the prosecution has been miserably failed to prove any of the charges against the accused Ombir Singh u/s. 489 B/489C/120B/34 IPC, accused may be acquitted for the charge.

43. (i) On behalf of accused Vipin Gupta besides advancing general arguments qua the recovery etc. as mentioned above, it is specifically argued that name of accused Vipin Gupta not mentioned in the first disclosure statement dated 02.07.2009 of accused Mohd. Naim. His name is mentioned in the second disclosure statement dated 06.07.2009.

(ii) It is further argued that mobile phone of accused Mohd. Naim allegedly used to make call to accused Vipin Gupta was recovered on 01.07.2009 from his personal search and thereafter said phone was taken out from the sealed pullanda and accused Naim was asked to make a call to accused Vipin Gupta and thereafter, alleged raid was conducted near Aggarwal Sweets Shop. But IO in his testimony did not speak about the seizure of mobile phone on 01.07.2009 and again reopening of sealed pulanda and taken out the mobile phone which S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 55 of 102 creates serious doubt about the raid conducted as alleged.

(iii) It is further argued that call details, record of mobile phone of accused Mohd. Naim was not taken from the concerned authority by the IO and placed on record.

(vi) It is further argued that the CDR of mobile no. 9278064305 allegedly recovered from accused Vipin Gupta proved by PW4, who has deposed that the sim used in the mobile phone was registered in the name of one Baldev Singh but prosecution did not make any effort to examine said Baldev Singh about the using of said sim reason best known to it. It is also argued that only Baldev Singh could have prove that said mobile phone belongs to Vipin Gupta which is not done in this case.

(vi) It is further argued that electronic record of CDR of mobile phone no. 9278064305 produced in the court without any certificate u/s. 65B (4) of Evidence Act. Hence, at the strength of law laid down in "Anwar PV Vs. P.K. Bhaskar and ors. (2014) SCC 473" the said electronic record cannot be read into evidence being the secondary evidence.

(vii) It is further argued that the motorcycle allegedly used by accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir on 06.07.2009 does not belongs to them but same belongs to PW11 Gulab Singh and his testimony is inconsistent. PW11 has deposed that Ombir and Vipin had come and asked for motorcycle but in cross examination, he admitted that he did not know S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 56 of 102 Vipin Kumar Gupta and deposed that he handed over the custody of motorcycle to one Anand. This witness has also stated that he had given the name of Ombir in his statement to the IO but on confrontation from his statement this fact was not found mentioned. Hence, it is argued that once PW11 has categorically that he do not know accused Vipin Gupta, it is not possible to give his motorcycle to a stranger. As such the testimony of PW11 is unworthy of credit and cannot be relied upon.

(viii) It is further argued that as per the case of prosecution raiding team reached near the Aggarwal Sweet Shops about 6/6:30 pm and remained there about three and half hr. but no sincere efforts were made by IO to call any independent public person , specially from shop of Aggarwal Sweet shop to join the raiding party which caste the serious doubt about the raid.

(ix) It is also argued that PW19, SI Manjeet Tomar has stated that accused Ombir handed over Pittoo Bag to Mohd. Naim and in turn Mohd. Naim handed over dummy packet to him and this story is also reiterated by PW18 as well. But this story is not in consonance with the story of prosecution as Ex.PW12/A bears the signature of accused Vipin Kumar as well as Ombir Singh which is not possible. It is also argued that PW12 HC Satpal has also given a different story that Pitto Bag was handed over by accused Ombir to Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Naim was handed over dummy packet to accused Vipin Gupta S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 57 of 102 which is contradicting the testimony of PW18 and PW19.

(x) It is also argued that alleged recovery of four currency fake notes is not corroborated by any independent witness though there was ample opportunity to associate the independent person from the nearby buildings.

(xi) It is further argued qua the recovery of printer, scanner, core etc. and opening of room at third floor that despite the opportunity the landlord was not called to join the proceedings of recovery which creates serious doubt. It is also argued that even no public witness was called to join the proceedings at the flat. It is also argued that statement of landlord was not recorded regarding tenancy premises in order to prove that who was using the said room.

44. Therefore, in view of the above arguments, it is vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons that prosecution has miserable failed to prove the charge against the accused persons, hence, they may be acquitted.

45. On behalf of State, it is vehemently argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that prosecution case depends on the testimony of PWs 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18 and 19 being the material witnesses. It is further argued that PW17 has categorically deposed that total 2120 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ sent to Currency note press, S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 58 of 102 Nasik. It is further argued that accused Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Naim also previously involved in the similar offences which shown their conduct. It is further argued that huge amount of fake currency cannot be planted. Hence, it is argued that the arguments of false implication by planting the fake currency is baseless. It is further argued that minor contradictions, not fatal to the prosecution case, which are bound to happen as a human nature may be ignored. It is also argued that public persons who have not joined the investigation, proper explanation have come on record in this record in the testimony of PW19, IO. PW19, SI Manjeet Tomar.

46. It is also argued that no question put to the IO why accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case so that proper explanation could be come on record. It is further argued that qua the search and seizure of the fake currency, as per section 166 Cr.PC in case of urgency requirement of two respectable persons as a witness to the search and seizure can be waived off. It is further argued that on the aspect of raid conducted on different places by the same IO, it is argued that present case pertained to the crime branch being exercising jurisdiction all over Delhi. It is further argued that no complaint to any department including the police lodged by any of the accused persons qua planting of fake currency, lifting of accused persons from their house. It is further argued the qua recovery of suit S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 59 of 102 case containing fake currency, handing over the same, proper explanation has been given by the IO in his testimony stating that said suit case was handed over by PW Zaitoon. It is further argued that it is not necessary in a case where complainant and investigating officer is the same person, accused persons are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the argument of defence that in the present case complainant and IO is the same officer is baseless. Lastly, it is argued that by murdering a person, accused ruined one family as well as create danger in the society but by circulating the fake currency it ruins the economy of the currency. Therefore, it is argued that prosecution has successfully able to prove the charge against all the accused persons on the basis of unimpeached / trustworthy testimony of witnesses, hence, all the accused persons may be convicted and sentenced as per law.

Analysis of evidence, reasons and decisions

47. The entire prosecution case and evidence lead by it relates to three incident of recovery of counterfeit currency, computer, printer, scanner etc. from or at the instance of accused persons.

(i) First incident pertains to raid conducted on 01.07.2009 near metro station Rajouri Garden where three accused persons namely Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh were apprehended and raiding team recovered counterfeit currency worth Rs. 20,000/, Rs.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 60 of 102 18,000/ and Rs. 7500/ all in denomination of Rs. 500/ respectively.

(ii) Second incident pertains to recovery of suit case containing counterfeit currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ in denomination of Rs. 500/ from the House of PW6 Zaitoon, Village, near Buland Shahar, U.P. on 05.07.2009 at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. pursuant to supplementary disclosure statement.

(iii) Third incident pertains to raid conducted pursuant to supplementary disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Naim at Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on 06.07.2009 and recovered fake currency i.e. four (4) notes of Rs. 500/ from accused Vipin Gupta and Two (2) notes of Rs. 500/ from accused Ombir Singh and Rs. 25,000/ original Indian Currency from Pithoo Bag and on the same night further recovery of electronic equipment i.e. computer, printer, scanner etc. from the rented house of accused Vipin Gupta pursuant to his disclosure statement from his rented house, premises no. 141 at Sector22, Pocket15, Rohini, Delhi.

48. In K. Hasim -Vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2005 SC 128 Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to discuss the importance and ingredients of Section 489A to 489E along with Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

"38. Further question that was raised is whether the essential ingredients of Section 489A, C and D are satisfied. The said S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 61 of 102 provisions reads as follows :

"489A Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes : Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency note or bank note shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section and of sections 489B, 489C, 489D and 489E the expression 'bank note' means a promissory note or engagement for the payment of money to bearer on demand issued by any person carrying on the business of banking in any of the world, or issued by or under the authority of any State or Sovereign Power, and intended to be used as equivalent to, or as a substitute for money. 489C Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.

489DMaking or possessing instruments or materials for forging of counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes whoever makes, or performs, any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency note or bank note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

49. The expression 'counterfeit' is defined in Section 28, IPC. The same reads as follows :

"28Counterfeit : A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practiced.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 62 of 102 Explanation 1 : It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

Explanation 2 : When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practiced."

50. Sections 489A to 489E deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. The object of legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and bank notes.

51. Section 489A not only deals with complete act of counterfeiting but also covers the case where the accused performs any part of the process of counterfeiting. Therefore, if the material shows that the accused knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting, Section 489A becomes applicable.

52. Similarly Section 489B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes. The object of Legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 63 of 102

53. Section 489C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489C and 489D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala vs. Mathai Verghese and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 33) the expression 'currency notes' is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.).

54. The wording of Section 489D is very wide and would clearly cover a case where a person is found in possession of machinery, instrument or materials for the purpose of being used for counterfeiting currency notes, even though the machinery, instruments or materials so found were not all the materials particulars required for the purpose of counterfeiting.

55. Section 28 defines the word 'counterfeiting' in very wide terms. The main ingredients of counterfeiting as laid down in Section 28 are :

"(1)causing one thing to resemble another thing; (2)intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 64 of 102 or (3) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.

Thus, if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised there is counterfeiting. (See The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. I. Hafiz Mohd. Ismail (AIR 1960 SC 669))."

56. In the said case it was observed that there is no necessity of importing words like "colourable imitation" therein. In order to apply Section 28 what the Court has to see is whether one thing is made to resemble another thing and if that is so and if the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived by it, there will be a presumption of the necessary intention or knowledge to make the thing counterfeit, unless the contrary is proved.

57. "Counterfeit" in Section 28 does not connote an exact reproduction of the original counterfeited. The Explanation 2 of Section 28 is of great significance. It lays down a rebuttable presumption where resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby. In such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless contrary is proved."

58. Further in Umashankarvs State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3074 Hon'ble Supreme Court states that mens rea is the main of the main S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 65 of 102 criteria to defetermine the offence U/s 489B to 489C IPC " 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit". Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currencynotes or bank notes is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 years old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial Court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currencynotes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B and 489C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [See : M. Mammutti vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1705."

59. Firstly, I will deal the common argument advanced on behalf of all the accused persons that in the present case complainant and the investigator is the same person, which is not permissible in law and all the accused persons are entitled for acquittal only on this count. To substantiate their arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon Mohan Lal S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 66 of 102 and Bhagwan Singh's case (supra).

60. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotics Branch of Delhi) SLP (Criminal) Diary no. 39528/2018 held as under :

"We are of the opinion that there cannot be any general preposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and accused is entitled to acquittal. Similarly, even with respect to offences under IPC, as observed hereinabove, there is no specific bar against the informant/complainant investigating the case. Only in case where the accused has been able to establish and prove the bias and / or unfair investigation by the informant - cum - investigator and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the deposition of informant - cum - investigator, meaning thereby prosecution does not rely upon other witnesses, more particularly the independent witnesses, in that case, where the complainant himself had conducted the investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on record. Therefore, as rightly observed by this court in the case of Baskar Ramappa Madar (Supra), the matter has to be decided on a case to case basis without any universal generalization. As rightly held by this court in the case of V. Jayapaul (Supra) there is no bar against informant police officer to investigate the case. As rightly observed, if at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of investigating officer, the question of bias would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore, it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified preposition that in every case where the police officer who registered the case by lodging the first information, conduct the investigation that itself had caused prejudice to the accused and thereby it vitiate the entire prosecution case and the accused is entitled to acquittal (emphasis supplied)."

61. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment also held as under :

"It is required to be noted that whether the investigation S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 67 of 102 conducted by the concerned informant was fair investigation is not is always to be decided at the time of trial. The concern informant/investigator will be cited as a witness and he is always subjected to cross examination . There may be cases in which even the case of a prosecution is not solely based upon the deposition of the informant/informantcuminvestigator but there may be some independent witnesses and/or even the other police witnesses. As held by this court in catena of decisions, testimony of police personnel will be treated in the same manner as testimony of other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witness his testimony cannot be relied upon. (see Karamjeet Singh Vs. State Delhi Administration (2003) 5 SCC 291) (emphasis supplied)."

62. Therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh (supra) the contention of accused persons that since PW 19 SI Manjeet Tomar is the complainant as well as Investigating Officer (IO), they are entitled for acquittal on this count only is not tenable. However, as Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that aspect of bias or real likelihood of bias as contended by accused persons will be assessed while appreciating the evidence of IO and other prosecution witnesses. Further, the contention of accused persons that all the witnesses examined qua the proceeding of recovery of counterfeit currency are police witnesses only and are biased also has no force in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh's judgment (supra), where it has been held that testimony of police personnel will be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witnesses. Hence, in short the contention of accused persons of bias and unfair investigation shall be decided by appreciating the testimony of each S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 68 of 102 prosecution witness in the context of facts and circumstances of the present case.

63. Now, I will deal with the another common argument advanced on behalf of all the accused persons it is contended that FSL report Ex.PW17/A has no evidential value and is not admissible in evidence as in the report there is no mention of any description of seal with which 6 polythene papers were sealed nor there is any mention about any FSL form. It is further argued that PW17 in his statement has not mentioned about his qualification or his experience to discern between the genuine currency notes and fake currency notes. He just mentioned to be working as Work Manager in the currency note press but have not mentioned from when he is posted there. To substantiate his argument, Ld. Counsel relied the case law titled as "State of Himachel Pradesh Vs. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318". This argument has no force as report Ex. PW17/A is prepared by PW17, who proved the same in the witness box and in the report itself all the objections have been dealt with and the details of the examination are also mentioned therein stating that the referred suspected notes are examined here in detail by comparing with genuine specimen note with the help of modern scientific instrument. Record also speaks that this witness is crossexamined by all the accused persons except accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh, who did not prefer to cross examine the witness, reason best known to S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 69 of 102 them despite opportunity. PW17 at the relevant time was working as Works Manager in Currency Note Press, Nasik and was a class I officer as mentioned in the report. The case law cited above is distinguishable on facts as in the present case accused persons were having opportunity to put the question regarding qualification, expertise etc. to the witness but no such question was put to the witness. Even Ex. PW17/A speaks that fake currency notes were received in sealed condition in 6 pulandas from HC Surender and there were total 2120 notes which were examined. Not only this the said currency notes after examination were sent to ACP Crime Branch in sealed condition and record also speaks that the said currency note for the first time produced in the court in the testimony of PW1 SI Gyaneshwar Buddha on 27.01.2010, who identified the same as Ex.P3. Record also speaks that the pulandas were sealed with the seal of Currency Note Press, Nasik and also bearing stamp of examined by official concerned. Therefore, I hold that objection qua the non admissibility of the report Ex. PW17/A is baseless.

64. Now, I will appreciate the evidence of prosecution witness in the contest of specific instance of raid conducted on different dates, time and places, wherein counterfeit currency notes were recovered and seized.

Raid conducted near Rajouri Garden Metro Station on 01.07.2009 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 70 of 102

65. As per prosecution case and the evidence come on record that on secret information a raid was conducted on 01.07.2009 near Rajouri Garden, Metro Station where three accused persons namely Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh were apprehended and raiding team recovered counterfeit currency worth Rs. 20,000/, Rs. 18,000/ and Rs. 7500/ all in denomination of Rs. 500/ respectively.

66. As per the case of prosecution, DD no. 8 Dated 01.07.2009 was recorded at 2:30 pm by PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar on the specific secret information that accused Mohd Naim and Shan Mohd. would come with counterfeit currency to deliver the same to their customer by using code word "Chamra". This information was shared with senior official who directed to proceed as per law and thereafter, raiding team proceeded for the spot vide DD no. 12 dated 01.07.2009 at about 5 pm from Chankya puri Crime office and reached at Rajouri Garden Metro Station at about 6 pm. As per testimony of PW, who examined qua this raid, IO / SI Manjeet Tomar requested 67 persons to join the raiding party but none agreed. Thereafter, without wasting their time PW3 HC Subhodh was depute as decoy customer and PW5 HC Rishi Pal was deployed as Shadow witness.

67. The main thrust of arguments advanced on behalf of accused persons namely Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Shahrukh is that no raid S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 71 of 102 as alleged was conducted nor any fake currency was recovered. It was also contended that all the accused persons were lifted from their houses and falsely arrested in this case by planting the fake currency. It is also contended that there is no independent witness was examined to prove the factum of recovery despite opportunity. On the contrary Ld. State counsel has argued that plausible explanation has come on record for non joining of public witness in the testimony of IO. It is also contended that time and again superior court has held that non joining of public witness to the proceeding of recovery is not fatal if otherwise the evidence of police witnesses inspire confidence in the mind of court and is trustworthy. It is further contended that such a huge currency cannot be planted.

68. Further, PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar has deposed that during search of accused Mohd. Naim one Eticket alongwith fine receipt of railway was also recovered and seized by IO vide memo Ex. PW19/C. PW9 Ravi Kalra has deposed that on 26.07.2009, a ticket was booked from his shop as he was doing the work of booking of Eticket in the name of two persons namely Wasim and Naim. PW9 has further deposed that said ticket was belongs to Amritsar Express Train no. 5708 from Delhi to Gorakhpur. This witness has proved the Eticket and access fair ticket as PW9/A and has also deposed that he has handed over copy of electronic reservation slip to IO vide memo Ex. PW7/A. S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 72 of 102 Therefore, it is contended on behalf of State that prosecution has proved that before the raid on 01.07.2009 accused Mohd. Naim and Shan Mohd. Performed journey on 26.06.2009 from Delhi to Gorakhpur and from Gorakhpur to Nepal and from there collected huge counterfeit currency as seized in this case in connivance of accused Mohd. Mulim. This court respectfully do not agree with the contention of State on the ground that electronic Ereservation slip Ex. PW7/B, Eticket Ex PW9/A both are computer generation documents and to prove both these documents certificate u/s. 65B Evidence Act is required which is not on record. Further, these documents were proved by the prosecution by PW9 Ravi Kalra, who is not the author of these documents, hence, these documents are not proved as per law. Furthermore, as per Eticket Ex. PW7/B same were booked in the name of Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Vasim. No evidence has come on record whether accused Mohd. Shanu is the same persons, who travelled in the train on 26.06.2009 as Mohd. Vasim. Simply, because the said Eticket were seized by IO from Mohd. Naim, it cannot be treated as proved document.

69. I am in agreement with the arguments of state that such a huge currency cannot be planted. However, to counter this argument of State it is contended that as accused Shan Mohd. And Mohd. Naim were already involved in similar cases and huge currency was planted by the IO in this case. I am failed to subscribe this explanation, the minute scrutiny S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 73 of 102 of PW3 HC Subhodh, Decory Customer, PW5 HC Rishi Pal, PW7 HC Surender Kumar, PW12 HC Satyapal, PW13 Ct. Sanjay, PW4 Ct. Manoj, PW16 Inspector Ashok Sharma, PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar shows that their testimony is corroborated on each material particulars and despite detailed cross examination remained unimpeached. Minor contradictions as pointed by defence bound to happen which does not affect the prosecution case. In Mukesh Singh's judgment (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that testimony of police personnel will be treated in the same manner as testimony of other witnesses. So far as argument or non joining of public witness is concerned from the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that raiding team reached at the spot about 6 pm and accused persons were apprehended about 77:15 pm. Though IO requested 67 persons to join the raiding team but none agreed and raiding team proceeded to execute the raid without wasting time. I find force in the explanation of the State on this aspect as in today's time no public person easily come forward to assist the police in execution of law. In view of these reasons, I hold that recovery of fake currency as mentioned in the seizure memo prepared on 01.07.2009 near Rajouri Garden, Metro Station were recovered from the possession of accused Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh.

Recovery at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. From village S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 74 of 102 Tajpur, District Bulandshahar UP on 05.07.2009

70. Second incident pertains to recovery of suit case containing counterfeit currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ in denomination of Rs. 500/ from the House of PW6 Zaitoon, Village, near Buland Shahar, U.P. on 05.07.2009 at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. pursuant to supplementary disclosure statement dated 04.07.2009.

71. As per prosecution case, pursuant to the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Shan Mohd. Ex. PW18/N, a raiding team comprising SI Manjeet Tomar, Inspector Ram Avtar, Inspector Ashok Sharma, Lady Constable Lata, ASI Mahender Singh, ASI Surender (driver), HC Satyapal, Ct. Manoj constituted, who proceeded to Village Tajpur, District Bulandshahar on 04.07.2009 and also sought assistance from local police i.e. PW1 SI Gyaneshwar Baddha PS Kotwali Dehat, Bulandshahar. Thereafter, raiding team reached at Village Tajpur and accused Shan Mohd. Pointed out towards house of his khala i.e. PW6 Smt. Zaitoon but the premises was found locked and sources were deployed with the help of local police to give any clue regarding PW6 Smt. Zaitoon. Thereafter, team came back to Delhi. Again on 05.07.2009, the said raiding team alongwith lady Ct. Rajulia went to Village Tajpur and found PW6 in her house. On the asking of accused Shan Mohd. PW6 Smt. Zaitoon after hesitation handed over the suitcase containing clothes to the IO and on checking the same it was S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 75 of 102 containing 67 clothes i.e. pant, tshirt, towel etc. from the said suitcase fake currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ in the denomination of Rs. 500/ recovered.

72. To prove the factum of the said recovery out of all the raiding members, prosecution examined PW1 SI Gyaneshwar Buddha, PW6 Smt. Zaitoon, PW16 Inspector Ashok Sharma, PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO.

73. Firstly, I will deal with the police witnesses qua the factum of recovery as it is vehemently argued on behalf of accused Shan Mohd. that no such raid was conducted on 04.07.2009 and 05.07.2009 in Village Tajpur and no recovery as alleged at the instance of accused was effected. It is vehemently argued that PW6 Smt. Zaitoon declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case hence importance link qua recovery of fake currency at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. is missing. Perusal of testimony of all the police witnesses shows that their testimony corroborated on material particulars each other and there is no major contradiction in their testimony.

74. So far as arguments of defence that PW1 Gyaneshwar Buddha is a planted witness as no DD Entry to the effect that he joined the raiding S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 76 of 102 team proved on record. Perusal of testimony of PW1 Gyaneshwar Buddha shows that he joined the raiding team of 05.07.2009 led by SI Manjeet Tomar with other staff from police Post Bhore District Bulandshahar with accused Shan Mohd. and reached at Village Tajpur and at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. PW6 Smt. Zaitoon handed over suitcase containing fake currency worth Rs. 10,11,500/ which was seized by IO Ex. PW1/A. This witness was cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons and during cross examination PW1 had admitted that no public person joined the investigation despite request by the IO. This witness has also categorically deposed that PW6 Smt. Zaitoon had also put her thumb impression on the seizure memo. This witness has also stated that he do not remember the time when they left the spot. But he voluntarily deposed that they left the spot before evening to PS Dehat, Bulandshahar. As mentioned above, the testimony of police witnesses shall be treated as part, if corroborated in material particulars. Simply because PW1 is a police witness his testimony won't be relied. PW1 is a police officer. He cannot join the raiding team and left the police post/PS without the order of the seniors. Therefore, I hold that testimony of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and the contention of defence that he is a planted witness is not tenable.

75. Now I will appreciate the testimony of PW6, who is examined as public witness to prove the factum of recovery of fake currency. As mentioned S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 77 of 102 above, it is contended that PW6 is a hostile witness hence, her testimony is of no use to the prosecution. In catina of cases superior courts has held that simply because a witness is hostile the entire testimony does not washed away. It is correct that in her examination in chief, PW6 shows ignorance about knowing anything about the present case. But this witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. State Counsel. In her cross examination, by the State PW6 has denied of any meeting with the police or any visit of place in connection with this case but when the question was put to this witness whether she has signed or put thumb impression on any document, she answered in affirmative stating that "police has obtained her thumb impression on blank paper". She also stated that her thumb impression were obtained by lady police at her residence again at 'Chand Pur'. This piece of evidence of PW6 shows that she has signed the seizure memo as deposed by other prosecution witnesses at her residence. The later part of the testimony of this witness shows that she could not speaking truth in the court due to some coresion duress as she has stated "mere chote chote bacche hain, main ek widhwa aurat hoon, mujhe kuch ni pata, mere se angoode kagaz per liye gaye thee". Therefore, this piece of testimony of PW6 corroborate the version of police that raid was conducted and she handed over the suitcase containing fake currency to the IO but due to reason best known to her she could not deposed the truth in the witness box. But I am of the considered view that the piece of evidence as S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 78 of 102 mentioned herein shows that recovery was effected from her house.

76. The other contention of defence that no procedure for search and seized is contained u/s. 100,165 and 166 Cr.PC followed. On this, I am in agreement with the submissions made by State that as per section 166 Cr.PC in case of urgency requirement of two respectable persons as a witness to search and seizure can be waived off. More so, in the facts and circumstances of the case as no premises number was given by the accused in his disclosure statement therefore, the said recovery shall be treated as recovery in the instance of accused Shan Mohd. Because it was only and only accused Shan Mohd. Who was aware about the house and about house of PW6 where the suitcase containing fake currency was kept. Hence, this contention of defence is also not tenable.

77. The argument of defence that no public person joined the proceedings is also not tenable as PW6 Smt. Zaitoon is a public witness. I am also in agreement of the submissions made on behalf of State that such a huge currency cannot be planted.

78. The arguments of defence that in the present case complainant and IO is the same person and the objection on admissibility of report of Nasik Note Press Ex. PW17/A has already been dealt with hereinabove.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 79 of 102 Hence, in view of these reasons, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has proved the factum of recovery from accused Shan Mohd. from village Tajpur.

Recovery at the instance of accused Mohd. Naim at Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on 06.07.2009

79. Third incident pertains to raid conducted pursuant to supplementary disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Naim at Aggarwal Sweets, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on 06.07.2009 and recovered fake currency i.e. four (4) notes of Rs. 500/ from accused Vipin Gupta and Two (2) notes of Rs. 500/ from accused Ombir Singh and Rs. 25,000/ original Indian Currency from Pithoo Bag and on the same night further recovery of electronic equipment i.e. computer, printer, scanner etc. from the rented house of accused Vipin Gupta pursuant to his disclosure statement from his rented house, premises no. 141 at Sector22, Pocket15, Rohini, Delhi.

80. On 06.07.2009 pursuant to the supplementary disclosure statement Ex.

PW18/N of accused Mohd. Naim, a raid was conducted by a team comprising of PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO, PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar, PW12 HC Satyapal, PW13 Ct. Sanjay, PW14 Ct. Manoj and other officials at the instance of accused Mohd. Naim near Aggarwal S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 80 of 102 Sweet Shop, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and during the raid accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta were arrested and recovery of counterfeit currency/Indian genuine currency were recovery from their possession. Contrary to it both the accused persons denied of having conducted such raid on 06.07.2009 and have contended that they have been picked up from their houses and falsely arrested in the present case by planting the fake / genuine currency. Both the accused persons claimed their innocence on the basis of arguments mentioned hereinabove. It is vehemently argued that entire investigation is tainted and lop sided from the very inception. Besides above arguments, both the accused persons preferred to file written arguments and case law in support of their contentions.

81. Firstly, I will deal with the arguments of defence regarding not mentioning the name of accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir in first disclosure statement dt. 09.07.2009 of accused Mohd. Naim. I have carefully read over the disclosure statement dated 09.07.2000 wherein accused Mohd. Naim had disclosed the name of Vipin Gupta, Ombir Singh and one Bhola as the person to whom he used to supply fake currency and have also disclosed that he can get those persons arrested. Therefore, the contention of defence that in the first disclosure statement their names were not mentioned is against the record. I have carefully read over the supplementary disclosure statement dt. 06.07.2009 of S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 81 of 102 accused Mohd. Naim. In the supplementary disclosure statement accused had disclosed two more facts i.e. (i) 15/20 days prior to the incident he handed over 10 fake currency notes of Rs. 500/ denomination as sample to Vipin Gupta, (ii) Mobile no. 9278064305 of accused Vipin Gupta.

82. Further no plausible explanation has come on record as to why IO did not investigate and made efforts to arrest accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir Singh despite their names were disclosed by accused Mohd. Naim in his disclosure statement dt. 02.07.2009 and have also undertaken to get them arrested. To the utter surprise of the court even PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO in his cross examination dt. 09.05.2012 has stated that "it is correct that in the aforesaid disclosure statement (dt. 02.07.2009), Mohd. Naim did not disclose anything about accused Vipin Gupta. He disclosed that he can get arrested the person from Delhi to whom he was dealing". This statement of IO is incorrect and against the record as name of both the accused persons are mentioned in the statement dt. 02.07.2009.

83. Further there is no evidence on record regarding desealing of mobilephone having no. 9654529662 of accused Mohd. Naim when he was asked to make a call to accused Vipin Gupta. Admittedly this mobile phone was seized by IO vide personal S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 82 of 102 search memo Ex. PW4/H on 01.07.2009 and again handed over to accused Mohd. Naim on 06.07.2009 for making call to accused Vipin Gupta on his mobile no. 9278064305. PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO in his examination in chief has deposed that "the mobile phone which was taken into possession from the accused at the time of his arrest was given to him and was asked to make a call to coaccused Vipin Gupta". Except this statement there is nothing in the testimony of IO as to whether the pulanda of mobile was desealed or was remained unsealed till 06.07.2009. This create serious doubt about the investigation conducted by the IO who is otherwise complainant as well.

84. In the above context there is relevancy in the argument of defence that call details, record of mobile phone of accused Mohd. Naim not taken from concerned authority and proved on record, reasons best known to the IO. In these circumstances, CDR and CAF of mobile of accused Mohd. Naim from which call was made to accused Vipin Gupta was important piece of evidence to be brought on record not only from the view point that said mobile belongs to accused Mohd. Naim but to ascertain the fact as to how many phone calls were made or received from the said mobile phone during intervening period i.e. 01.07,.2009 to 06.07.2009 to rule out the doubt about bias investigation as pleaded. Therefore, this court is of the view that non production of S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 83 of 102 CDR and CAF of mobile phone of accused Mohd. Naim also creates serious doubt about the fair investigation.

85. Further as per the case of prosecution, mobile no. 9278064305 allegedly recovered from accused Vipin Gupta and was being used by him but as per testimony of PW4 M.N. Vijyan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services. The said mobile was registered in the name of one Baldev Singh. But said Baldev Singh not examined as a witness by the prosecution to fill the link that said mobile number belongs to accused Vipin Gupta or used by him. No explanation has come on record for non examination of said Baldev Singh. Therefore, this court hold that by non examining the registered customer of mobile no. 9278064305 being the important link to prove that the said number was being used by Vipin Gupta is missing.

86. Further at the strength of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title "Anwar PB Vs. P.K. Bhaskar and others" (2014) SCC 473, it is contended that CDR of mobile no. 9278064305 proved without any certificate u/s. 65B(4) Evidence Act. Hence, said electronic record cannot be read into evidence being the secondary evidence. Admittedly, CDR of mobile no. 9278064305 allegedly used by accused Vipin Gupta proved by PW4 M.N. Vijiyan and PW22 Rajiv Ranjan (again examined on arrest of accused Mohd.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 84 of 102 Muslim) as Ex. PW4/A and the said record is computer generated copies for which certificate u/s. 65B(4) Evidence Act is required. But no such certificate either placed on record or proved by the prosecution. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in case title "Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal", 2020SCC online SC 571 has held that "A certificate u/s. 65B (4) Evidence Act is mandatory, and a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record". In the present case CDR Ex. PW4/A being the electronic record is not supported by certificate u/s. 65 B(4) Evidence Act. Hence, in view of the law laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the judgments (Supra), the CDR as proved by PW4 cannot be read in evidence.

87. Now I will deal with the arguments regarding non joining of public witness in the raid. As per testimony of PWs police team reached at the spot i.e. near Aggarwal Sweet Shop about 66:30 pm. It has also come in evidence of PWs that before proceeding their office, accused Mohd. Naim was asked to make a second call to accused Vipin Gupta and accused Vipin Gupta assured him to reach at the spot about 7 pm to take delivery. But accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir admittedly reached at the spot on the motorcycle about 10:30 pm. Therefore, police team as per their own case remained at the spot about 4 hour and was waiting of the arrival of the accused S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 85 of 102 Vipin Gupta. More so, IO came to know on the basis of call made by Mohd. Naim to accused Vipin Gupta that he will reach at about 7pm. But to the utter surprise of this court, despite having ample time no sincere efforts were made by the IO for joining the raiding team by an independent public witness. Prosecution witness have given vague answer that no public persons has joined the raiding team despite request of IO. In the raid conducted on 01.07.2009 near Rajouri Garden Metro station, this court has accepted the contention of State regarding non joining of public witness because there was paucity of time as raiding team reached at the spot about 6 pm and accused persons were arrested at 7 pm. But in the present raid, IO was having specific information about coming of accused Vipin Gupta based on the phone call by accused Mohd. Naim, despite this he did not bother to act diligently and as per law. Even IO admitted in cross examination that area from where accused persons were arrested is thickly populated but no efforts were made to join any public person in the raid. This court is also in agreement of the contention raised by defence that if no public person agreed to join the raiding team, IO could have made the videography of the raid, which has not been done. This court is also of the view that IO was having opportunity to record the conversation between accused Mohd. Naim and Vipin Gupta on mobile phone for the further corroboration but he did not bother to record the said S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 86 of 102 conversation. This court is also of the view that IO could have called any person from the Aggarwal Sweet Shop for joining the raid as he has admitted that at the time of raid, said shop was opened. In view of these reasons, this court is of the view that non joining of any public witness despite having ample time and opportunity by the IO in the raid caste serious doubt about the proceedings conducted at the spot.

88. Likewise, no independent person has joined the proceedings qua recovery of monitor, CPU, Keyboard, mouse, printer and scanner at the instance of accused Vipin Gupta from his rented room bearing premises no. 141, Pocket 15, Sector22, Rohini, Delhi. As per testimony of witness at about 12 midnight raiding team alongwith accused Vipin Gupta proceeded to Rohini and made the recovery. Prosecution examined PW8 Dharamvir Singh as owner of said premises, who deposed that accused Naveen (identify accused Naim as Naveen by face in the court) lived as cotenant with one Akanksha at the third floor of his house. Therefore, as per testimony of PW8 accused was residing at third floor but IO did not make any effort to call any resident of the other floor of the said premises or any neighbour to join the recovery proceedings. In my considered view IO did not make sincere efforts to join the independent witnesses to join proceedings which create serious doubt in recovery of electronic items mentioned above only and only at the instance of Mohd. Naim. Though S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 87 of 102 IO in his testimony has categorically admitted that this recovery is not related to the present case or that of the recovery of Indian Fake Currency Notes. Even then IO was under legal obligation to conduct the proceedings by following the due process law.

89. Now I will appreciate liability of evidence of PW11 Gulab Singh on whose motorcycle accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta stated to have reached at the spot and the said motorcycle was also seized. In his testimony recorded on 31.03.2010 PW stated his age 20 years and have also stated that his father purchased the motorcycle cycle bearing no. DL4SA7415 about 78 years back. The registration record of said motorcycle is proved by PW2 Chander Bhan as Ex. PW2/A. The said motorcycle was registered on 23.02.2006. It is contended on behalf of accused persons that in the year 2006 PW Gulab was about 1213 years old and vehicle as per rules cannot be registered in his name being the minor. PW11 during cross examination has stated that "I have not brought the RC or any other paper of the vehicle since they have been lost. My father had bought the vehicle about 78 years back. The vehicle is registered in my name. Police had not taken copy of RC from me. I am aged about 2021 years old". This witness has also stated in his crossexamination that "today I have not brought any identification proof". Admittedly no RC is seized by IO during investigation.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 88 of 102 Even there is no seizure memo of computer generated particulars of the vehicle on record. Even no missing report regarding missing of RC and other papers produced in the court either by PW Gulab or by the IO. Pertinently in the statement of PW1 u/s. 161 Cr.PC, IO has also mentioned the age of PW Gulab as 20 years old. Hence, as rightly contended vehicle could not have been registered in the name of PW Gulab in February 2006. Therefore, from the facts and evidence come on record it cannot be said whether PW11 Gulab who appeared in the witness box was the same Gulab in whose name vehicle was registered and proved by document Ex. PW2/A. It also caste the serious doubt about the identify of PW11 Gulab.

90. Further it is also argued by both the accused persons that there are material contradiction and improvement in the testimony of PW11 Gulab. In his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC, PW Gulab has deposed that he has given his motorcycle to Vipin Gupta whereas in the court he improved his statement stating that he gave his vehicle to Ombir and Vipin Gupta. Not only this during cross examination he has also stated that "I do not know Vipin Gupta. I know one Anand who is my neighbour. I had given my vehicle to all the three i.e. Anand, Vipin Gupta and Ombir but I handed over the custody of vehicle to Anand". Admittedly said Anand not examined as a witness by the prosecution, whose name introduced for the first S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 89 of 102 time in the witness box by the witness. Therefore, from the testimony of PW11 Gulab it is clear that he does not know accused Vipin Gupta to whom he had given vehicle as per statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC. Further, in the said statement, Ex. PW11/DA the name of accused Ombir is not mentioned. Therefore, this court is of the view that the testimony of PW Gulab suffers from material contradictions and unworthy of credit.

91. Further, defence has also contended that PW12 HC Satyapal has stated that both the accused persons namely Vipin Gupta and Ombir Singh were wearing helmets. Seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. PW18/X on perusal shows that no helmet was seized by the IO from the possession of accused persons. No explanation has come on record in the testimony of IO about the helmets. Seizure memo Ex. PW18/X even does not find mentioned about the seizing of key of motorcycle as contended by defence. In view of these reasons serious doubt has been created about the seizing of motorcycle from the spot.

Factum of recovery of fake currency as well as Indian Genuine Currency

92. Now I will decide the factum of fake as well as Indian Genuine Currency consequent upon search of accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta during raid near Aggarwal Sweets Shop, Jahangir S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 90 of 102 Puri, Delhi. As per the case of prosecution Rs. 25,000/ Indian Genuine Currency was recovered from the pithoo bag handed over to accused Mohd. Naim by accused Ombir Singh and in turn accused Mohd. Naim handed over dummy packet containing fake currency to accused Vipin Gupta. It is also the case of prosecution that the fake currency note of Rs. 500/ were recovered from the purse of accused Vipin Gupta while two fake currency note of Rs. 500/ recovered from the purse of accused Ombir Singh.

93. As per the case of prosecution the above case property were recovered in the presence of members of raiding team comprising PW12 HC Satyapal, PW13 Ct. Sanjay, PW14 Ct. Manoj, PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar and PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO. But prosecution examined only PW12, 18 and 19 to prove the factum of recovery in this raid.

94. Prosecution at the strength of these three witnesses has argued that it has proved the factum of raid as well as recovery beyond reasonable doubt and minor contradictions are bound to happen. It is also contended that no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons by the contradictions as pointed out. It is also contended that contradictions as pointed out are not major which demolish the prosecution case.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 91 of 102

95. On behalf of accused persons it is vehemently argued that no raid as alleged have been conducted and further argued that since no raid was conducted hence, there was no question of recovery from the search of accused persons. It is also vehemently argued that the genuine as well as fake currency is planted upon both the accused persons. It is also argued that accused persons were picked up from their houses and falsely arrested in this case. It is also argued that all the documents were prepared in the office of Crime Branch and signature of both accused persons were obtained thereon. It is also argued that there are material contradiction in the testimony of PW12 HC Satyapal and PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar on material particulars which goes to the route of alleged factum of recovery. The other argument of accused person are mentioned in details hereinabove.

96. As per seizure memo Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B four notes of Rs. 500/ and two notes of Rs. 500/ recovered from the purse of accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir Singh respectively which were the fake currency notes. I have carefully perused the testimony of PWs. But there are material contradiction on the aspect whether fake notes were recovered from the purse or from the pocket. PW12 HC Satyapal has deposed that "apart from fake currency notes, there were few visiting cards and some other papers available in the purse". But S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 92 of 102 PW12 shows his ignorance whether there were other currency notes in the purse of accused persons or not. PW12 is the material witness being the shadow witness of the raid.

97. PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar who is the attesting witness to all the documents prepared by IO has deposed that "on conducting personal search of both the accused persons by IO, 4 notes and 2 notes of fake currency recovered from accused Vipin gupta and Ombir Singh respectively". This witness has not stated that the fake currency notes were recovered from the purse of the accused persons. Even during cross examination this witness has stated that "I do not remember from which pocket of accused fake currency was recovered". He further qualify this statement by volunteered that "the personal search of accused was taken by IO". This witness further stated that "there was recovery of some change from the pocket but I do not remember the amount". This witness is also material witness as entire proceedings were conducted in his presence and is a attesting witness as well. Therefore, I am of the view that PW18 Inspector Ram Avtar have not stated that the currency notes were recovered from the purse of accused persons. Contrary to version of both these witnesses as per seizure memo Ex. PW18/S, one black colour purse containing Rs. 630/ and 3 ATM Cards, other articles were seized from accused Ombir and as per seizure memo Ex. PW18/T one purse containing Rs. 1260/, 3 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 93 of 102 ATM Card, PAN card, Election Card were seized from accused Vipin Gupta besides other articles as mentioned in the memo. Hence, the testimony of PW12 and PW18 not corroborated to each other on the aspect of recovery of fake currency note and which is the material contradiction. PW12 though have deposed about recovery of fake notes from the purse but has shows his ignorance about other currency notes in the purse of accused persons. Contrary to it PW18 deposed that fake notes were recovery from the pocket. He has not deposed of having recovered the fake notes from the purse of accused persons. Even he could not remember as to from which pocket fake notes were recovered. Whereas, contrary to the testimony of these two witnesses PW19 SI Manjeet Tomar, IO have deposed that fake notes were recovered from the purse and has also deposed that he conducted personal search of accused persons in the presence of other members of the raiding team. Contrary to it PW12 and PW18 have deposed that they do not remember whether IO offered his personal search before conducting the search of accused persons. In view of these reasons, this court is of the view that a serious doubt has created whether the fake currency notes were recovered from the purse seized from the accused persons or from the pocket. The serious doubt has also caused about recovery of fake notes from the purse in which the genuine currency (Rs. 630/ in the purse of accused Ombir and Rs. 1260/ in the purse of accused Vipin Gupta) were also there. No S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 94 of 102 evidence has come on record whether the fake notes were lying mixed with the genuine currency or were kept separately.

98. Now comes to recovery of Rs. 25,000/, Indian Currency from the pittho bag. The present raid was conducted near Aggarwal Sweet Shop pursuant to supplementary disclosure statement of Accused Mohd. Naim Ex. PW19/N in which only the name of accused Vipin Gupta is mentioned. It does not find mentioned the name of accused Ombir Singh. It has also come in evidence that on reaching at the Aggarwal Sweet Shop accused Mohd. Naim made another call to accused Vipin wherein accused Vipin Gupta asked him about arranging Rs. 25000/ but no efforts were made by the IO to record the said conversation despite ample opportunity. The said pittho bag stated to handed over by accused Ombir Singh to accused Mohd. Naim but his name is not mentioned in Ex. PW18/N and in turn accused Mohd. Naim handed over the dummy packet of fake currency to accused Vipin Gupta which is a major contradiction. In view of law laid down in Aghnoo Nagesia case (supra) the supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW18/N is not admissible in evidence as no recovery of Indian Currency effected from accused Vipin Gupta whose name is mentioned therein. Therefore, in view of these reasons since Ex. PW18/N was recorded by IO while accused Mohd. Naim was in police custody, it cannot be read against him in view of mandate of section 2425 S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 95 of 102 Evidence Act.

99. In the other two incident of raid dt. 01.07.2009 & 05.07.2009 this court considered and decided the arguments of State in its favour that such a huge currency cannot be planted by IO but in the present incident even that argument is also of not much help as only 6 fake currency notes in total recovered from both the accused persons. In view of above reasons the possibility of planting of fake currency notes in this particular incident cannot be rules out. In view of the above reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the factum of conducting raid as well as consequent recovery on 06.07.2009 near Aggarwal Sweets Shop, Jahangir Puri, Delhi only and only from the possession of accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta. Hence, accused Ombir Singh and Vipin Gupta are entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. Hence, order accordingly.

100. Now I will discuss the evidence qua Mohd. Muslim. The name of accused Mohd. Muslim find mentioned in disclosure statement of accused persons namely Shan Mohd., Mohd. Naim and Mohd. Shahrukh that he was actively involved in the trafficking of fake currency with them. During investigation accused Muslim could not be arrested, hence, coercive method were adopted to secure his arrest by the IO but of no avail. Vide order dt. 17.12.2009, accused S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 96 of 102 Mohd. Muslim was declared Proclaimed Offender (PO). Thereafter, accused was arrested on 24.10.2011 and supplementary charge sheet was filed against him thereby opining by IO that so far no more evidence against accused Mohd. Muslim but he participated actively in commission of crime as disclosed by co accused persons, hence, he was challan for having committed offence u/s. 120B IPC r/w. 489B/489C/34 IPC and section 174A IPC.

101. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Mohd. Muslim that no recovery of any kind either from personal search or at the instance of accused was affected. It is also argued that even no evidence of conspiracy have come on record.

102. Perusal of entire prosecution evidence shows that except the name of Mohd. Muslim mentioned in the disclosure statement there is no evidence of conspiracy against the accused on record. Even there is no scientific evidence like call details of mobile of accused Mohd. Muslim of the conversation with other coaccused persons come on record.

103. In view of above reasons this court has no hesitation to hold that S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 97 of 102 prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of conspiracy of trafficking of counterfeit currency with other coaccused persons against accused Mohd. Muslim. Hence, accused Mohd Muslim is entitled for acquittal for want of legally admissible evidence. Hence, order accordingly. Since, accused Mohd. Muslim has been acquitted for the main charge, this court is also of the view that he is entitled for acquittal for the charge u/s. 174A IPC. Hence, accused Mohd. Muslim also acquittal for charge u/s. 174A IPC.

104. Hereinabove, I had held that prosecution has successfully proved the factum of recovery from accused Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd, and Mohd. Shahrukh during raid conducted on 01.07.2009 near Rajouri Garden Metro Station and further recovery at the instance of accused Shan Mohd. from Village Tajpur, District Bulandshahar UP on 05.07.2009. Now I will decide for what offence all the three accused persons liable to be held guilty.

105. Similarly Section 489B relates to using as genuine forged or counterfeited currency notes or bank notes. The object of Legislature in enacting this section is to stop the circulation of forged notes by punishing all persons who knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged do any act which could lead to their circulation.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 98 of 102

106. Section 489C deals with possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes. It makes possession of forged and counterfeited currency notes or bank notes punishable. Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary ingredients to constitute offence under Sections 489C and 489D. As was observed by this Court in State of Kerala vs. Mathai Verghese and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 33) the expression 'currency notes' is large and wide enough in its amplitude to cover the currency notes of any country. Section 489C is not restricted to Indian currency note alone but it includes dollar also and it applies to American dollar bills.).

107. Further in Umashankarvs State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3074 Hon'ble Supreme Court states that mens rea is the main of the main criteria to defetermine the offence U/s 489B to 489C IPC " 8. A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489B and 489C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes are forged or counterfeit". Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currencynotes or bank notes is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes is not sufficient to make out a case S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 99 of 102 under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above. No material is brought on record by the prosecution to show that the appellant had the requisite mens rea. The High Court, however, completely missed this aspect. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 7 that they were able to make out that currency note alleged to have been given to PW 4, was fake "presumed" such a mens rea. On the date of the incident the appellant was said to be 18 years old student. On the facts of this case the presumption drawn by the trial Court is not warranted under Section 4 of the Evidence Act. Further it is also not shown that any specific question with regard to the currencynotes being fake or counterfeit was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. On these facts we have no option but to hold that the charges framed under Sections 489B and 489C are not proved. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under Sections 489B and 489C of I.P.C. and acquit him of the said charges [See : M. Mammutti vs. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1705."

108. In the present case as per disclosure statement PW18/K of accused Mohd. Naim, the names of accused Vipin Gupta, Ombir and one Bhola were mentioned as intending buyer of the counterfeit currency. But in view of my above finding accused Vipin Gupta and Ombir have been acquitted for the entire charges against them. Perusal of entire prosecution evidence shows that there is no evidence on record to attract S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 100 of 102 section 489B IPC i.e. selling of counterfeit currency recovered from the accused persons.

109. The arguments of State that testimony of PW3 HC Subodh is sufficient to prove the charge u/s. 489B IPC. Respectfully I am in disagreement with Ld. State Counsel on this point. PW3 HC Subodh Kumar cannot be treated as intended buyer for the simple reason that no evidence has come on record as to how the information that accused persons uses code word "Chamra" to sell the counterfeit currency comes to the raiding team. No evidence is lead to this effect. Moreover, I am in agreement contention raised on behalf of accused persons that no person can expect to hand over the article in the shape of currency note to a unknown persons at the spur of movement by uttering word "Chamra" without knowing his identify and verifying credence etc.

110. Therefore, in view of my findings hereinabove, in my considered view prosecution has successfully able to prove the charge against accused Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Shahrukh only for offence u/s. 489C IPC. No legal evidence to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy has come on record. Accordingly, accused Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Shahrukh are convicted for offence u/s. 489C IPC and are acquitted for the remaining charges.

S.C. No. 57713/2016 State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others page 101 of 102 Conclusion :

(i) Accused Vipin Gupta, Ombir Singh, Mohd. Muslim are acquitted.

Their bail bond be cancelled. Sureties are discharged. In compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC all these three accused persons are directed to furnish PB/SB in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety of like amount, which shall remain in force for a period of six months, in case State prefer appeal against this judgment.

(ii) Accused Mohd. Naim, Shan Mohd. and Mohd. Shahrukh are convicted for offence u/s. 489C IPC and are acquitted for the remaining charges. Let they be heard on the point of sentence separately.

                                                                                     Digitally
                                                                                     signed by
                                                                                     POORAN
                                                                            POORAN   CHAND
                                                                            CHAND    Date:
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN                                                                2020.12.04
                                                                                     15:40:00

COURT ON 27th November, 2020
                                                                                     +0530


                                                               (POORAN CHAND)
                                                        ADDI. SESSIONS JUDGE02
                                                                   (WEST):DELHI




S.C. No. 57713/2016      State Vs. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ Chintu and others     page 102 of 102

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . Shan Mohd @ 1. Shan Mohd. @ Shanu @ ... on 27 November, 2020