Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2 After completing investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 489B/489C/489D/120B IPC. It was also mentioned therein that their co- accused Saleem and Zafeer could not be arrested despite best efforts made by investigating agency and submitted that supplementary charge- sheet would be filed after their arrest. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on May 14, 2009. Thereafter, the case was assigned to the learned Predecessor of this Court on May 20, 2009. Accordingly, case was registered as SC No.42/2009.
3. Initially, vide order dated July 7, 2009, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 489 B and 489 C IPC was framed against the accused persons. Thereafter, vide order dated January 19, 2011, a fresh charge for the offence punishable under Section 489B/489C/489D/120B IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 9 witnesses:-
PW-1 Babu Lal, landlord of the house of accused Vijay PW-2 HC Parveen Kumar, duty officer, proved the FIR SC No. 42/2009 Page no. 4 of 28 State vs. Mohd. Wasim & others and DD No. 9A and 10A PW-3 Aasha Ram, landlord of the house of accused Wasim, turned hostile PW-4 SI Hawa Singh, DD writer, proved the DD No. 5, 6, 11 & 15 PW-5 Const. Joginder Singh, member of raiding party PW-6 HC Dilawar Singh, member of raiding party PW-7 ASI Rakesh Kumar, investigating officer PW-8 SI Satender Vashist, 2nd investigating officer PW-9 ASI M. Baxla, MHCM
25. Admittedly, the offence punishable under section 489B and 489D IPC attract punishment up to imprisonment for life. Thus, in such a heinous crime, Society and Court expect better quality of investigation. In the instant case, investigation was conducted by the investigators of Special Cell, which is well equipped to conduct intensive investigation. But it appears that the investigators of Special Cell are not aware about the basic cardinal rules of investigation. Even investigating officer did not aware as to whether Special Cell is governed by the provisions of Punjab Police Rules or not as PW7 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not know whether Special Cell is governed by the Punjab Police Rules SC No. 42/2009 Page no. 16 of 28 State vs. Mohd. Wasim & others or not. How can Society expects to follow rules from such investigator who does not know which rules he has to follow during investigation. Needless to say whenever a case is investigated by a specialized agency such as Special Cell, Court and Society expect better quality of investigation. As already discussed, in this case no efforts were made either to know the identity of persons who bought fake currency notes from Vijay and Mahender Pal or to recover the ill-gotten money by selling the fake currency notes. Such lapses were not expected from such a specialized agency.
SC No. 42/2009 Page no. 23 of 28
State vs. Mohd. Wasim & others
35. From the testimony of PW5 to PW7 it is established that accused Mohd. Wasim was apprehended on January 13, 2009 from opposite Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, Rohini and was found in the possession of fake currency notes worth of ` 30,000/- and fake currency notes worth of ` 50,000/- were recovered from the bag, which he was carrying and handed over to Vijay. Though accused Mohd. Wasim in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. took the plea that he was picked up from District Centre, Janak Puri but in support of his plea accused failed to adduce any evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution. However, their deposition only proves the guilt of accused Mohd Wasim for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC. Though prosecution case is that accused Mohd. Wasim had either printed the said fake currency notes at his rented room at Faridabad or he received the same from Saleem and Zafeer, yet during trial prosecution failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove the said charges. As already discussed, in the absence of any cogent evidence, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Mohd. Wasim for the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489D IPC. Similarly, prosecution has also failed to prove the charges of conspiracy.