Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts leading to filing of the present application are as under:

2.1 That, the complainant received information that one Mohammad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kagde (accused no.1) and Salim Abdul Hamid (accused no.2) were selling counterfeit currency notes at concessional rate, therefore, the complainant went at the place with panchas and found three persons dealing with money transactions and on making search of those persons, counterfeit currency [88 notes] of different HC-NIC Page 2 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 denominations of Saudi Arabian Riyal were found.

While interrogating, the accused no.1-Mohammad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kagde stated that he had brought counterfeit currency notes from Mumbai and kept at the place of the applicant and after taking such currency notes from the place of applicant, it was handed to the accused no.2 and 3 and thereafter, such notes came to be seized and accused were arrested and impugned FIR has been filed by the complainant-respondent no.2. 2.2 After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No. 204 of 2008. That, during pendency of the Sessions case, the applicant filed an application Exhibit-8 with a request to discharge him from the charges levelled against him. However, vide order dated 19th June, 2009, learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad rejected the said application, HC-NIC Page 3 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 and therefore, the applicant has filed present application with a request to quash the impugned complaint and order dated 19th June, 2009. 2.3 While admitting the present Application on 8th September, 2009, this Court stayed further proceedings of Sessions Case No. 204 of 2008 pending in the court of the learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, qua the applicant.

6. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondents as well as documentary evidence produced on the record, it appears that on 10th April, 1996, a complaint was lodged by Navrangpura Police Station on a piece of information by the respondent no.2 that one Mohammad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kagde and Salim Mehmood Shaikh were selling counterfeit HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 currency notes at concessional rate. The complainant reached at the place of offence with panchas and found 3(three) persons dealing in money transactions and on making search of those persons by the complainant, counterfeit currency notes of Saudi Arabian Riyal were found [in all 88 notes of denomination of 500]. At that time, the accused no.1 Mohammad Rafik Abdul Hamid Kagde stated that those counterfeit currency notes were brought by him from Bombay and were kept at the place of the present applicant. Thereafter, such counterfeit notes were being taken from the place of the applicant and handed over to the accused no.2 and 3 namely Salim Mehmood Shaikh and Usmangani Mahmood Malek. These counterfeit currency notes were seized and thereby accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 were arrested. Thereafter, a complaint, being C.R. No. I-225/1996 came to be registered with Navrangpura Police Station, District:

HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) & (C) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The present applicant was arrested on 11th April, 1996 and thereafter, upon a bail application preferred by the present applicant before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Ahmedabad, he came to be released by the Court. However, remaining accused were not remained present before the court of learned Magistrate, after the charge sheet was filed against the present applicant. The case against the present applicant was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, as the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, and consequently, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 204/2008. It appears that the discharge application moved by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed on a statement of co-accused having placed fake HC-NIC Page 10 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 currency notes at the residence of the applicant. As per the averments and arguments made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, there is no other charge against the applicant, except the statement of the co-accused. From the averments and arguments advanced by learned APP, statements of the co-accused were recorded by the police, wherein involvement of the present applicant was found, particularly of fake currency notes having been found at the residence of the applicant. It is pertinent to note that a complaint was lodged by the respondent no.2 in the capacity of Police Sub-Inspector on a tip off information received in this connection, and when he reached at the place of the offence, money transaction was going on, which resulted into seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the place of offence ie., residence of the present applicant. It would be premature to say anything at this stage in HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Sat Aug 12 18:49:40 IST 2017 respect of credibility of the statement made by the respondent no.2 in the complaint. The legality of statement can be considered at the trial only. Further, the counterfeit currency notes were seized by the Investigating Officer in presence of the panchas, and therefore, their statements would also be considered by the trial court, while they would be examined by the court concerned. Evidentiary value of the statement of a witness would only be decided by the trial court and not at this stage. Statements of co-accused recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation shows prima facie involvement of the present applicant in the offence. It is not the only evidence available with prosecution to involve the present applicant in the alleged offence. Other evidences too prima facie finger at the applicant.