Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.10. The prosecution witnesses, mainly the police officers, in terms, deposed that the fake currency notes, which were seized, were placed in one plastic jar and was sealed with 'Lakh' and such fact is recorded in the recovery panchnamas Exhs.55,59 and 75 and all the police personnel deposed in that line. Whereas, P.W.18 - Mr.Mukeshbhai Nandshankar Joshi, whose evidence is recorded below Exh.115, admits in cross- examination that the sample muddamal articles, which were sent to F.S.L., did not bear any 'Lakh'. The said witness further admits that he has examined 5 to 7 fake currency notes only. 9.11. The Investigating Officer of the present offence being C.R.No.252 of 2006 registered with Malaviyanagar police station, Rajkot relied upon F.S.L. Report Exh.169 which was prepared for the offence registered with Bavla police station vide C.R.No.91 of 2006 in respect of the fake currency notes recovered as per discovery panchnama Exh.111 drawn in the said offence. Admittedly, muddamal i.e. fake currency notes seized/recovered from the possession of the accused Nos.1 to 3 and F.S.L. Report Exh.169, indicate that the said currency notes recovered under recovery panchnamas vide Exhs.55,59 and 75 were not printed from the computer and printer seized as per panchnama Exh.72. Meaning thereby, the prosecution case rests on the F.S.L. Report Exh.169 prepared on the basis of the muddamal recovered as per panchnama Exh.111 drawn for the offence registered vide C.R.No.91 of 2006 with Bavla police station. Neither the panchas of discovery panchnama Exh.111 supported the prosecution case nor the prosecution brought on record the fact as to ownership of the house from where, the computer, printer etc. were recovered at the instance of the accused No.7 nor examined the owner of the house, namely, Mr.Kiranbhai to prove that incriminating muddamal as per panchnama Exh.111 was recovered at the instance of accused No.7 from the said house. The said discovery panchnama Exh.111 drawn with reference to the offence registered with Bavla police station vide C.R.No.91 of 2006 cannot be treated as valuable piece of evidence and such discovery panchnama can be treated as piece of corroborative evidence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such piece of evidence to hold accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offence in question. In order to enable the Court to safely rely upon the evidence of recovery of incriminating fact/materials at the instance of the accused No.7, as contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is necessary that the exact words attributed to the accused No.7 as statement made by him be brought on record and for this purpose, the panch- witnesses as well as the Investigating Officer are obliged to depose in their evidence an exact statement and not by merely stating that discovery panchnama of computer set, through which, the fake currency notes were printed was drawn and accused No.7 was willing to take it out from a particular place. Admittedly, one of the panchas, namely, P.W.16-Mr.Nalinbhai Chimanbhai Makwana, turned hostile and the Investigating Officer in-charge of the offence registered with Bavla police station vide C.R.No.91 of 2006 has not deposed anything about statement that the disputed currency notes were printed through computer set discovered as per panchnama Exh.111. On the contrary, P.W.17-Mr.Rajeshkumar Ramjibhai Limbad-Investigating Officer, who was examined below Exh.113, in terms, states that accused No.7 desirous to show the place which he has kept on rent before 4 days of drawing of discovery panchnama Exh.111. In the said evidence, it is deposed by the said Investigating Officer to the effect that the accused No.7 stated that he is willing to produce the computer set through which, he printed the notes with reference to the offence registered with Bavla police station vide C.R.No.91 of 2006 and not with reference to the disputed notes of the present offence registered vide C.R.No.252 of 2006. Thus, it would not suggest that the accused No.7 indicated anything about printing of disputed notes in the computer set discovered as per panchnama Exh.111. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed serious error in placing reliance on this discovery panchnama Exh.111 which does not prove anything with reference to the present offence.