Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45. As per prosecution version, after arrest accused Rashid had made the disclosure statement Ex. PW11/B wherein he disclosed that he had kept the counterfeit currency notes in his bag which he was carrying. Pursuant to that disclosure statement, 20 counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the said bag. On the basis of this story, learned Additional Public Prosecution contended that the said recovery is admissible under SC No. 14/10 & 35/10 Page no. 28 of 46 State vs. Rahis & others Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

Contentions relating to accused Ashraf:

53. Counsel appearing for the accused vigorously contended that there is no admissible evidence to establish that accused had hatched any criminal conspiracy with the accused Rahis & Jaspal. It was submitted that accused had been shown arrested from H.No. 769 Gali No.20 Jafrabad Delhi whereas accused had no concern with the said house. It was submitted that accused was arrested from H.No. D-23 Jafrabad, Delhi and DW1 has proved this fact. It was submitted that as per prosecution version 40 counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused, it was contended that it is highly unbelievable that any person would sleep in his house after keeping counterfeit currency notes in his pocket.

55. Police had arrested the accused Ashraf as his name was surfaced during the disclosure statement of Rahis, who made disclosure statement twice which are exhibited as Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/S. Perusal of the said disclosure statement reveals that accused Rahis had hatched the criminal conspiracy with accused Jaspal and Rashid to print the counterfeit currency notes. In his disclosure statement, he nowhere disclosed that accused Ashraf was also party to the said conspiracy. In his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/E, accused Rahis disclosed that he had given counterfeit currency notes worth of ` 1.50 lac from time to time. He did not disclose that he had given the said currency notes to Ashraf for circulating the counterfeit currency notes in the market. From his disclosure statement it is not clear what was understanding between them. If Ashraf's job was to circulate the said currency notes in the market, it means that Ashraf must have returned the genuine currency notes to Rahis against the said counterfeit currency notes, but Rahis had not disclosed anything about this. Needless to say that the said disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence as same is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, a recovery of distinct fact is admissible in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

SC No. 14/10 & 35/10                                       Page no. 33 of 46
                                                             State vs. Rahis & others

56. Now coming to the evidence led by the prosecution. In this regard, the testimony of PW4, PW12 and PW14 are relevant. PW4 in his examination-in-chief deposed that Rahis had made a disclosure statement about Ashraf stating that he had given fake currency notes to Ashraf. Similarly, PW12 deposed that Rahis had disclosed about Ashraf that counterfeit currency notes could be recovered from him. PW14 deposed that accused Rahis led the police party to the house of Ashraf and at his pointing out Ashraf was apprehended and interrogated. Thus, it is evident that none of the above witnesses deposed that Rahis had even disclosed to them that he had hatched the criminal conspiracy with Ashraf to print the counterfeit currency notes. Nor he deposed that he had assigned the job of circulating the fake currency notes to accused Ashraf. From their deposition at the most it proves that accused Rahis had knowledge that some counterfeit currency notes were also in the possession of accused Ashraf. As already discussed that investigating officer even did not deem it appropriate to analysis the calls detail of the accused persons to ascertain that there was any interaction between them. In the absence of any cogent evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that accused Ashraf was part of the alleged conspiracy.