Delhi District Court
State vs . Lakshay Luthra Etc. on 12 April, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIRJA BHATIA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03, (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
UID No.57570/2016
FIR No.616/2015
U/S 489A/489B/489C/120B IPC
P S Vikas Puri
State Vs. Lakshay Luthra etc.
JUDGEMENT
1 Sl. No. of the case 57570/2016
2 Date of Committal to Sessions 26.11.2015 3 Name of the complainant SI Shree Krishna 4 Date of commission of offence 30.06.2015 5 Name and Parentage of 1. Lakshay Luthra @ Manu accused S/o Sh. Nand Kishore, R/o R7, Gurpreet Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059.
2. Devendar Singh @ Lucky @ Kalta S/o Sh. Balwant Singh R/o B3/2, Chander Vihar, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of Under Section 489B/489C/34 IPC 7 Offence charged Under Section 489A/489B/489C / UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 1 of 56 2 489D/120B IPC 8 Plea of guilt Pleaded Not Guilty 9 Final order Acquitted 10 Date on which order reserved 12.04.2019 11 Date on which order 12.04.2019 announced BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts as reported by the prosecution are that on 30.06.2015, SI Sri Krishna who at that time was posted at PS Vikas Puri received a secret information that one sikh boy who happens to be resident of Chander Vihar alongwith his accomplice is indulging in forging / faking currency notes and circulating / using them in the open market. It was informed that they are likely to supply the fake currency notes near PVR Sonia, Vikas Puri and if immediately raided they can be arrested. On receiving this information, a raiding party comprising of SI Rajbir No. 3985D, HC Satender 162W, Ct.
Pramod No. 935W and Ct. Anil was constituted, who went through a private vehicle to the spot where SI Sri Krishna UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 2 of 56 3 requested few passersby to join the investigation, however, they left after disclosing their inability without telling their name and due to paucity of time, no notice could be served upon them.
2. The raiding party was briefed and the secret informer was told to signal by raising his right hand after confirming the identity of the accused persons.
3. At about 3.15 PM two boys, out of which one was a Sardar and was wearing 'Pagri' came near park PVR Cinema. On seeing them, secret informer 'signalled' by raising his right hand, on which SI Sri Krishna alongwith raiding party apprehended both the accused persons.
4. Ct. Pramod 935W then took personal search of the sikh boy from whom around 30 currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination each were found from the right side pocket of his jeans having the same No. 3FD 090786.
5. Ct. Pramod 935W also took personal search of other accused from whose possession 15 notes of Rs. 100 denomination UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 3 of 56 4 were found from the left side pocket of his wearing pant and each note bearing the same number as 3FD 090786.
6. On enquiry the name of sikh boy was revealed as Devender Singh @ Lucky @ Kalta S/o Sh. Balwant Singh and that of other came to be known as Lakshay Luthra @ Manu S/o Nand Kishore.
7. Both the accused persons revealed that after watching discovery channel, they gathered the idea of printing fake currency notes and started printing fake currency note from computer and had by then already circulated and used about 2025 thousand rupees through fake notes in market. The currency notes recovered from possession of both the accused persons were seized and after keeping them in a plastic box same was handed over to SI Rajbir. At the instance of SI Krishna, Rukka was prepared and FIR was lodged. The investigation then was handed over to IO SI Kuldeep Singh who thereafter arrested both the accused persons, seized the case property, prepared the site plan and on the disclosure of UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 4 of 56 5 accused persons, recovered another Rs. 13800/ through fake notes of 100 rupees denomination bearing same number. Thereafter, accused Devender @ Lucky @ Kalta also got the monitor and printer recovered from his house which was seized by the police for further FSL opinion. At the stage of filing of chargesheet, Section 489A was removed.
8. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed, the Ld. MM took cognizance and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.PC. committed the case file to the court of Sessions vide order dated 22.11.2015.
9. The charges against both the accused persons was framed on 04.02.2016, vide a detailed order wherein it was observed that since there is sufficient material to frame charges under other Section, i.e., 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 120B IPC, same was also framed, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10.To prove its case, the prosecution examined total nine witnesses.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 5 of 56 6
11.One witness HC Satnder was dropped by prosecution on 04.10.2016. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 09.03.2018. Whereafter accused Lakshya Luthra @ Manu through his counsel moved application under Section 232 Cr.PC which was disposed off as being not maintainable and another application under Section 315 Cr.PC was allowed vide order of the same date, i.e., 20.07.2018. Whereafter the statement of Lakshy Luthra was recoded as DW1 on 20.08.2018.
12.The gist of evidence produced by prosecution is as under:
13.Sh. Maninder Singh @ Monu was examined as PW1 who stated that he is neighbour of accused Lakshay Luthra @ Manu (one of the accused) and had seen Devender Singh (other accused) visiting to the house of Lakshay Luthra. He stated that in the month of May 2015, accused Devender came to him for borrowing his printer which he returned five days prior to 30.06.2015 on which date, he came alongwith UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 6 of 56 7 with the police and was informed that the printer was used for printing fake currency notes.
14.This witness also stated that the printer was dropped at the parking near his house by accused Devender stating that "the same had become out of order and he would take back the same for repairing it".
15.He was cross examined by Ld. APP in response to which he denied that coaccused Lakshya Luthra had also accompanied accused Devender Singh in the month of May, 2015 for taking the printer and that Lakshay Luthra again accompanied accused Devnder when the printer was brought to the parking near the house of the witness and that both the accused persons revealed to have indulged in printing fake currency notes and circulating them in market. He was confronted with his statement. However, he denied having been made the same to the police.
16.In response to the cross examination by accused Lakshay Luthra he revealed that no statement of his was recorded by UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 7 of 56 8 the police on 30.06.02015 (at the time of recovery of printer) but his signatures were taken on seizure memo of the printer and he was not served any notice by the police for joining investigation.
17.In his further cross examination he admitted that he did not know accused Devender personally and knew him only through other accused Lakshay Luthra.
18.He stated that he was not present at the time when police visited his house but was at the house of his friend at Navada and came only after receiving a call from his father where he found police officials at the second floor of his house and two police officials already present at second floor and rest of the police officials standing at the ground floor while accused Devender Singh was present on the second floor other accused Lakshay Luthra was present on the ground floor.
19.He stated that he was not asked for the bill of printer by any police official who took the printer from his parking.
20.PW2 SI Sri Krishna revealed that while he was at PS on UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 8 of 56 9 30.06.2015, he received a secret information that two persons who used to circulate counterfeit currency note would come near PVR Cinema Sonia with counterfeit currency notes and if raid is conducted, they can be apprehended. This secret informer was introduced to the SHO on whose direction, the raiding team comprising of SI Rarjbir, Ct. Pramod, Ct Anil, HC Satender and him was formed which left at about 2.30 PM from PS in a private vehicle alongwith secret informer and after reaching at the spot, he briefed the raiding party which took their position at different points / places and at about 3.15 PM, he saw two persons came there on motorcycle which was being driven by one sardar and other was pillion rider, at this juncture he identified both the accused persons and stated that the accused persons after parking their motorcycle by the roadside, moved towards bus stand. The secret informer pointed out towards the accused persons who were apprehended and their names were revealed as Devender @ Lucky @ Kalta and Lakshay Luthra @ Manu from whose UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 9 of 56 10 possession about 30 (thirty) and 15 (fifteen) counterfeit currency notes respectively were recovered and seized having same serial no. of 3FD 090786.
21.The photographs of recovered counterfeit currency notes were taken, the notes seized were put in plastic box and sealed with the seal of SKS. The seizure memo is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. The Rukka prepared by this witness is exhibited as PW2/B.
22.The Rukka was handed over to Ct. Pramod. After the case was registered Ct. Pramod came at the spot alongwith SI Kuldeep to whom he showed the place of occurrence for which at his instance site plan Ex.PW2/C was made. He stated that all the recovered currency notes were having the same serial No. "3FD 090786".
23.The entire case property could not be shown to the witness as one sealed pullanda was received from FSL.
24.He was cross examined in which he revealed that he left the spot at about 6.30 PM after the proceedings of writing work, UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 10 of 56 11 preparation of Rukka, seizure memo, currency note, photographs were completed.
25.He states that they went in a WagonR car, the owner of which he did not know as the keys of this vehicle were taken from SI Rajesh at the police station. He stated that the accused persons were coming towards us from Outer Ring Road and they were on foot. He stated that his statement was recorded by second IO at the spot at which juncture he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr,POC which was Ex.PW3/A wherein he stated to have made the statement to IO at the police station.
26.He feigned ignorance qua Ct. Pramod having offered his search to accused persons prior to taking their search. Though he admitted that he did not ask the accused persons for taking search of Ct. Pramod prior to their search and volunteered that he offered his search to the accused persons which they did not take. He admitted that there are about 34 Pan shops opposite the road near the PVR Cinema at a distance of about UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 11 of 56 12 1520 paces from the spot but he did not ask anyone to join the investigation nor he prepared search memo at the time of cursory search of the accused persons nor had shown his position in the site plan which he did not state to the second IO SI Kuldeep while preparing the site plan. He claimed that he took position in between Gurudwara and bus stand on the pavement.
27.All currency notes were stated to have been placed on a table lying near bus stand where the photographs of the currency notes were taken by him. He stated that the table was lying abandoned.
28.He further stated that no logbook regarding use of private car is prepared. He was confronted with the fact of him telling the second IO regarding taking of photographs of currency notes from his statement Ex.PW3/DA where it was not so recorded. He was given suggestion that accused Lakshay Luthra was picked from his house on 27.06.2015 and was falsely implicated by planting case property on him. UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 12 of 56 13
29.In his further cross examination for accused Devender Singh @ Lucky @ Kalta, he admitted that he did not narrate the position of member of raiding party to second IO as the same was not asked.
30.In his cross examination he stated that the IO SI Kuldeep Singh only prepared the site plan and thereafter, he left the spot. The suggestion that accused Devender @ Lucky @ Kalta was picked from his house on 27.06.2015 and was falsely implicated was denied.
31.PW3 SI Rajbir Singh, was a member of raiding party who stated that on 30.06.2015, he was intimated by PW2 SI Sri Krishna to join the raiding party and he alonwith SI Sri Krishna, HC Satender, Ct. Pramod, Ct. Anil and secret informer went near PVR cinema where SI Sri Krishna requested 34 passersby to joint investigation but none agreed and due to paucity of time no notice was served upon the persons upon refusal. Thereafter, SI Sri Krishna briefed the raiding party which took position at different points/ placed. UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 13 of 56 14 The secret informer was directed to give signal on arrival of the persons having fake currency note by raising the right hand. At about 3.15 the accused persons (who at this juncture were identified by this witness) reached, the secret informer send the signal by raising his hand who were then apprehended. The search of accused Devender Singh was made first, from whom 30 (thirty) fake currency notes of Rs. 100 (hundred) each/denomination from right side pocket of his wearing jeans pant were recovered bearing same number as 3FD090786, The other accused Lakshay Luthra @ Manu was also cursory searched from whom 15 (fifteen) fake currency notes of 100 (hundred) was recovered from the left side pocket of his wearing pant bearing same serial No. as 3FD090786.
32.The photographs of the currency notes were taken which were then put in a plastic box and sealed with the seal of SKS and the seal was handed dover to this witness after use. The site plan was prepared at the instance of this witness as well as at UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 14 of 56 15 the instance of PW2 SI SKS. He further stated that the statement of SI Sri Krishna was recorded by SI Kuldeep Singh whereafter, SI Sri Krishna was relieved.
33.The disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A and B were signed by this witness at point A. He also witnessed their arrest and personal search exhibited as Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/F.
34.He participated in recovery proceeding pursuant to the disclosure statement. Accused Devender led them to his house and got recovered other fake currency notes and the "machine" which was used in counterfeiting the currency notes. In total about 148 (one hundred forty eight) fake currency notes denomination of Rs. 100 (hundred) each was recovered from the house of Devender singh bearing the same Sr. No.,i.e.,3FD090786. The photographs of these currency notes were also taken and 148 (one hundred forty eight) currency notes were seized and kept in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of KS. The seizure memo is exhibited as PW3/G by this witness.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 15 of 56 16
35.He further stated that accused Devender ingh also got recovered the monitor, CPU and the printer from his house and same were also sealed vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/H after being sealed with the seal of KS.
36.Site plan of the house of accused Devender Singh was prepared in presence of this witness.
37.PW3 SI Rajbir Singh stated that accused Manu also led them to his house and from the parking, accused Manu got recovered a printer and same was sealed with the seal of KS which was witnessed by this witness and already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B.
38.In the cross examination, sealed pullanda was opened in his presence which was containing 193 (one hundred ninety three) currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100 (hundred) each bearing Sr. No. 3FD090786 which on identification by this witness was collectively exhibited as Ex. P2.
39.He also identified printer make of HP and one more printer UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 16 of 56 17 make Canon, one CPU and monitor Ex. P1 respectively on which he stated that the printer make HP was got recovered from the garage of witness Maninder Singh @ Monu at the instance of both the accused persons while the printer make Canon, CPU and monitor Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 was recovered from the house of accused Devender Singh @ Lucky @ Kalta.
40.In his cross examination, he stated to have driven the private WagonR car of gray colour used by the raiding party from PS to PVR Cinema. He neither knew the number of WagonR car nor the details of its owner. He stated that where the raiding party waited and apprehended the accused persons is not a busy place though he saw people coming and going from the place.
41.No vehicle was seized at the spot as per this witness and his statement was recorded by the second IO at the PS. He stated to have told the second IO of the photographs of the currency notes taken at the spot. However, from confrontation of his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC where no such statement UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 17 of 56 18 was found recorded. He further stated that there are 34 pan shops opposite the road. He stated that the IO did not call any public persons to join the investigation from PVR cinema, from the panshops or from the Gurudwara.
42.He stated that the personal search memos of the accused were prepared later on and that Ct. Pramod did not offer himself for search before conducting the search of the accused persons. At the second instance this witness stated Ct. Pramod offered his personal search himself but accused person refused to search him. However, no document stated to have been prepared by the IO when Ct. Pramod offered his personal search. He sated that he disclosed his position to the IO while the raid was being conducted though he admitted that his position was not depicted from the site plan. He stated that the table which was used while taking the photographs of currency notes was of a juice seller and was lying by the side of wall adjacent to road. The owner of the table was not come during that time.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 18 of 56 19
43.He stated that he had not mentioned in his statement that accused Manu got recovered the printer from the parking of his house. He volunteered to state that he told to the IO that both the accused persons got recovered the printer from the parking of the house of Monu. In his cross examination in response to the same conducted by the counsel for accused Lakshay Luthra, he stated that the briefing was made by SI Sri Krishna about the spot at the PS itself. Whereafter, they all left the PS. He stated that accused persons were coming from the side of Outer Ring Road, i.e., Shankar chowk and going towards Vikas Puri, CBlock Gurudwara.
44.Qua the place of recovery of printer, he revealed that there is channel gate on the parking from where the printer was recovered. He stated that he cannot say if any outsider can easily reach there or not. In his further cross examination by counsel for accused Devender Singh @ Lucky @ Kalta. He denied having knowledge as to how the WagonR car was parked in the PS which was used by the raiding party. He UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 19 of 56 20 stated that Ct. Pramod and SI Kuldeep came to the Spot on a motorcycle. The statement of this witness was recorded at the PS at about 11.30 PM. He had only witnessed the statement of SI Sri Krishna being recorded by IO SI Kuldeep which he states to have been recorded at the spot.
45.He further revealed that he witnessed SI Sri Krishna took photographs. He could not narrate the colour of cloth worn by accused Devender Singh. The accused person were noticed by him from the distance of 510 (five to ten) steps. He was standing alone at his position whereas the secret informer was standing alone on the north side at the distance of 10 (ten) steps on the divider of road. SI Sri Krishna is stated to be standing towards Gurudwara side. HC Satender was standing behind this witness. Ct. Anil was standing on Gurudwara side near park. Ct. Pramod was in between this witness and SI Sri Krishna.
46.He stated that house of accused Devender Singh was in kachchi colony and accused Devender Singh was residing UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 20 of 56 21 with his family. However, he did not know how many rooms are there on grounds floor. Qua joining of public witnesses, he stated that request was made to 56 persons residing nearby the house of accused Devender Singh but none joined. No notice was served upon these persons.
47.The notes stated to have been recovered from a box made of iron lying by the front wall in the room ahead of gallery. From the house of accused Devender Singh, witness states that they all went to the house of accused Lakshay Luthra and at about 10.3010.45 PM, they reached at PS from the house of Lakshay Luthra where the case property was deposited in Malkhana.
48.The contrary suggestion were denied by the witness.
49. PW4 HC Jagdish Chander was a witness who got the present FIR registered through computer operator which is Ex.PW4/A. He endorsed the Rukka as Ex.PW4/B and handed over the copy of FIR to Ct. Pramod. He also certified the FIR under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and issued UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 21 of 56 22 certificate which was exhibited as Ex.PW4/C.
50.In his cross examination he initially stated that IO SI Kuldeep had issued the certificate under Section 65B of Indian evidence Act but later on volunteered that certificate was issued by him. He denied the suggestion that the FIR is ante dated and ante timed.
51.Alok Kumar Mehta, Sr. Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL Rohini was examined as PW5. He revealed that he received two sealed parcels on 18.11.2015. The seals were intact on the parcels as per the forwarded letter. He himself opened the parcels and after examining the exhibits, prepared his detailed FSL report which is Ex.PW5/A, all the original documents in 193 sheets were resealed with the seal of DOC.FSL. He was not cross examined.
52.Ct. Anup Singh was examined as PW6 as he collected the exhibits from MHC(M) on 12.03.2016 and went to Printing Press Nasik, Maharashtra where on 14.03.2016, he deposited the exhibits in sealed condtions which were examined by the UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 22 of 56 23 experts and report was handed over to him on the same day. He returned to PS Vikas Puri on 18.03.2016 and deposited the exhibits and report, with MHC(M). In his cross examination, he stated to have narrated to IO about his departure and arrival entry at Delhi. However, same were not found on confrontation with his statement under section 161 Cr.PC. The suggestions put to the witness is denied by him.
53.Jitender Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Manager, (Technical) Currency Note Press, Nasik, Maharashtra was examined as PW7, who examined 193 currency notes of Rs. 100 each on 14.03.2016 from different angles and found that the currency notes were counterfeit notes. His detailed report is Ex.PW7/A. This witness was not cross examined.
54.Inspector Kuldeep Singh IO was examined as PW8 who narrated the occurrence stating that while he was at PS Vikas Puri on 30.06.2015, the investigation of the present case was made over to him alongwith original Rukka, copy of FIR and other relevant documents at around 6.00 PM and he UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 23 of 56 24 alongbwith Ct. Pramod reached at the spot where SI Sri Krishna, SI Rajbir Singh, HC Satender and Ct. Anil met him and handed him over custody of accused Lakshay Luthra and Devender Singh. He prepared a rough site plan Ex.PW2/C and received the seizure memo and parcels of case property. Whereafter, he recorded the statement of SI Sri Krishna and relieved him from the spot.
55.He stated that he interrogated both the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D and their personal search was conducted by him which are Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/F. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, he stated that accused Devender Singh led them to his house where from he got recovered 148 (one hundred fortyeight) fake currency notes of Rs. 100 (hundred) each which were kept in a plastic box and sealed with the seal of KS. The accused Devender Singh also got recovered one CPU, monitor and printer which were also sealed with the seal of KS vide Ex.PW3/H. He prepared the site plan of UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 24 of 56 25 recovery which he exhibited as Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, he stated that both accused persons took them to one Manvinder Singh @ Monu and got one printer recovered from the basement of the house of the Manwinder Singh and it was revealed to him by Manwinder Singh that both the accused taken his printer from him which were then seized and exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. He stated that after sealing the articles, the seal was handed over to HC Satender. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, both the accused persons were sent for medical examination and he returned to PS and case property were deposited with MCH(M) who made relevant entries in Register No. 19. IO also informed NIA about the recovery of fake currency and sent the fake currency to FSL Rohini for opinion where from he was informed that currency notes were fake. He received the FSL report as well as the case property from FSL and again deposited the same with MCH(M). During further investigation, the currency notes were sent to Security UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 25 of 56 26 Printing Press Naisk, the report of which is Ex.PW7/A confirming that the notes were counterfeit currency notes. The report of FSL and Nasik was deposited through supplementary chargesheet.
56.He correctly identified the entire case property including 193 fake currency notes Ex.P2 collectively and the printer make HP Ex.P1, Printer make Canon Ex.P3, CPU Ex.P4 and monitor Ex.P5 as well as the accused person who where present during their examination.
57. In the cross examination through Girish Kumar for accused Lakshay Luthra, PW8 / IO Inspector Kuldeep Singh stated that he narrated that the currency notes, seized from the spot by SI Sri Krishan and from the home of accused Devender Kumar were all mixed up by Nasik Press. He narrated that despite efforts no public person joined the investigation. Though he did not serve any notice to public persons. Qua the site plan, he stated that UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 26 of 56 27 point 'A' was the place from where both the accused persons were arrested and in response of a specific question about position of each police officials of raiding party in site plan, he again narrated their position at point 'A' at which stage site plan Ex.PW2/C was shown to him to which he has stated that he has not given point 'A', 'B', and 'C' where the police party was standing. He also claimed that the statement of IO SI Sri Krishan was recorded at the spot but on confrontation with his statement Ex. PW8/1, showed that it was recorded by him at PS. He further stated that the house of Maninder Singh is situated in a residential area. However, no public persons was joined during the seizure of the printer. He denied that the printer was recovered from an open space.
58. He stated that he used his personal car in reaching the house of Maninder from the spot and another vehicle used in investigation was private car of SI Rajesh, the UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 27 of 56 28 registration number of which he did not remember. The suggestion that both accused were picked from their respective homes on 27.06.2015 and after obtaining their signature on blank sheets whereon false disclosure was recorded, they were falsely implicated. The suggestion that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons was denied. However, he admitted that no photography and videography was done at the spot. In his further cross examination, he revealed that the recovery of notes was effected from the second room of the house of accused Devender Kumar from an iron box. He further admitted that the statement of PW1 Maninder Singh was not recorded on the day when the recovery of printer was effected from his parking but he recorded his statement later on, for which purpose he called witness Maninder Singh through one Ct. However, he did not remember the name of the Ct. through whom this witness was called. UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 28 of 56 29 He also stated that he did not remember as whether any signature of Maninder singh was obtained on the site plan at the time of recovery. The contrary suggestion that no recovery was effected from the parking of Maninder Singh and that he neither recorded his statement nor took his signature on site plan was denied. Rest of the suggestions were also denied by him.
59. PW9 ASI Parmanand was the MHC(M) on relevant date of 30.06.2015 posted at Vikas Puri. He stated to have received five sealed parcels on 30.06.2015 qua which entry was made in register No. 19 at Sr. No. 1950. On same very day, he received another sealed parcel deposited by SI SK for which another entry at Sr. No. 1951 was made in register No. 19. the copies of which he exhibited as Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. He on direction of IO sent the sealed parcels to FSL Rohini through SI Kuldeep vide RC NO. 102/21 which he exhibited vide UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 29 of 56 30 Ex.PW9/C, which accepted the sealed parcel, containing currency notes and returned remaining four sealed parcels which he again deposited in the Malkhana. Again on 30.12.2015, he received one sealed parcel containing currency notes and FSL result from FSL, Rohini for which he made an entry at point X. On 12.03.2016, on the direction of the IO, these sealed parcels were sent to National Security Printing Press Nasik through Ct. Anup. He stated that till the parcels remained with him the seals was intact. The suggestion that he made false entry in register was denied by this witness.
60. After conclusion of PE, statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC in which they denied their involvement and offered to lead DE. As their application under Section 315 Cr.PC was allowed, accused Lakshay Luthra deposed as DW1 and stated that he was lifted by police official from his house on UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 30 of 56 31 27.06.2015 and was taken to PS Vikas Puri where he alleges to have been kept from 27.06.2015 to 30.06.2015 and falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that he was ever taken to his residence or to the residence of PW1 after his apprehension or arrest. He denied having known PW1 Maninder Singh earlier though he admitted that Maninder Singh lives in his locality. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that from the date of his arrest, legal assistance was taken by his family for pursuing the present matter. He also admitted that no complaint of his alleged confinement at PS from 27.06.2015 to 30.06.2015 was ever made. He further admitted that there is no enmity between him and the police officials either. After his statement, DE was closed. Matter was kept for arguments and opportunity for final arguments was imparted to both sides on 12.04.2019.
61. I have heard the submissions from Ld. Add. PP who UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 31 of 56 32 vehemently argued in favour of conviction of accused persons claiming that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the guilt of accused persons on the basis of charge framed against them. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsels have argued in favour of acquittal of both the accused persons.
62. The bare reading of the relevant provisions for which accused are charged states:489A.Counterfeiting currencynotes or banknotes. "Whoever counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currencynote or banknotes, 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."
63. Section 489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. "Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 32 of 56 33 traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, 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."
64. Section 489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currencynotes or banknotes. "Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currencynote or banknote, 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 extended to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
65. Section 489D. Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currencynotes UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 33 of 56 34 or banknotes. "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 currencynote or banknote, 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."
66. The charge has also been framed under Section 120B IPC against the accused persons for having conspired for the purposes of commission of aforesaid charges.
67. In order to prove the aforesaid charges framed against the accused it was incumbent that sufficient material must have been shown that the accused persons were found to have possessed counterfeit currency for the purposes of circulation and or that the same could have been UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 34 of 56 35 circulated, that for the aforesaid purpose of circulating counterfeit currency they indulged in making such currency notes knowingly and or performed any part of the process of counterfeiting the currency notes, that they used as genuine the counterfeit currency notes and or sold, bought or received and or otherwise trafficked as genuine, the forged or counterfeit currency notes and or that they had in their possession any machinery, instruments or material for the purpose of being used knowingly or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used for forging or counterfeiting any currency notes.
68. Now coming to the evidence produced in this regard. In nutshell the statement of the witnesses revealed that on 30.06.2015 both accused persons were apprehended from near the park PVR, Sonia Vikas Puri and on their search taken by the police officials about thirty notes of Rs.100/ UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 35 of 56 36 (hundred) each bearing same number was found from the possession of one accused Devender and another 15 (fifteen) notes of Rs. 100/ (rupee hundred) each bearing same number were found from the possession of accused Lakshay Luthra. The accused persons are claimed to have been nabbed on the basis of secret information as per which both accused, having possession of the counterfeit currency notes were circulating the same and accordingly, the police officials acting on this secret information, arrested the accused persons wherefrom the afore mentioned recoveries were effected and at the same time, all the proceedings were drawn of the crime scene by first IO SI Sri Krishan who seized the currency notes, made the seizure memos, drew out a rough site plan and also took the photographs of the seized notes whereafter, Ct. Parmod was sent with the Rukka to the PS who while returning from PS, came with second IO SI Kuldeep, who UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 36 of 56 37 took over the investigation from the IO Sri Krishan and recorded the statement of SI Sri Krishan and other officials of police raiding party, arrested the accused persons, took their disclosures statements and proceeded to make further recoveries at the house of accused Devender on being led by this accused where a seizure of computer monitor, CPU and printer was made and thereafter, the police party went to house of PW1 Maninder Singh, from whose parking one more printer was recovered. The recoveries memos, seizure memos and site plan were made by second IO SI Kuldeep. Whereafter, the seized material was sent for FSL examination. However, the FSL returned rest of the seized material apart from two sealed pullandas containing currency notes and gave its report thereupon vide result dated 30.11.2015. However, the IO sent the same pullandas to NSP Nasik through Ct. Anup on 12 UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 37 of 56 38 14.03.2016 who came alongwith the seized material as well as report. Thereafter the chargesheet was submitted.
69. Now coming to assess the aforesaid, at the outset it is observed that the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the charge mentioned (supra) is neither consistent nor adequate for the following reasons / observations:
70. The first major lacuna glaringly apparent in the present case is the presence of PW1 Maninder Singh / Monu and recovery of the printer from his parking lot as the charge sheet is completely silent on this aspect. There is no mention of any such proceedings having taken place at all by IO SI Kuldeep in presence of the police party and this explains the reason of their being no statement of this witness, i.e., PW1 Maninder Singh finding its place on record. This also explains the reason as why the proceedings carried out by IO SI Kuldeep Singh are defective and not creditable.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 38 of 56 39
71. Further, the witness PW1 Maninder Singh who is the sole public witness in this case has narrated to have handed over the printer to accused Devender Kumar who was known to him through Lakshay Luthra with whom he also had only acquaintance and not even friendly relations. Without explaining any reason, on reaching out to accused Devender to him for borrowing his printer without having no previous friendly relation, he handed it over to him his printer. The prosecution claimed that accused Devender was accompanied with Lakshay Luthra and they both went for the purposes of taking the printer from PW1 which fact this witness has denied. Similarly, the scenario of return of the printer also does not match with the claim of the prosecution as even at this juncture accused Devender did not go with Lakshay Luthra for return of the printer as per the statement of this witness. It is pertinent to observe that without asking for anything UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 39 of 56 40 PW1 Maninder Singh accepted the printer which was brought in defective condition and did not even keep it in the safe location of his home but abandoned it by allowing Devender to keep it in the parking which is accessable by many persons as he lives in one of a floor of a four storey building. No explanation is extracted from this witness to sufficiently show as what prompted him to let his printer be kept in such unattended state, wherefrom it is recovered after five days of its return by the police. The facts presented by this witness are inconsistent to the case of the prosecution itself and uncreditworthy as neither possible nor believable.
72. PW2 the most vital witness of prosecution SI Sri Krishna who received the information, formed the raiding party, went to the spot, apprehended the accused, indicated to the second IO and participated in the most significant part of the investigation being the first IO of the case has also UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 40 of 56 41 not shown any consistency of his statement. He has not been able to place any photograph of the counterfeit notes recovered from the possession of both the accused namely Lakshay Luthra and Devender when they were first apprehended at the spot, near park PVR Cinema, Sonia, Vikas Puri. Though he as well as PW3 Ct. Pramod stated that the photograph of the counterfeit notes were taken while keeping them on a table which he claimed to have been found abandoned near the spot, but again at the cost of repetition no such photograph is appended with the chargesheet at all. Regarding taking of photographs, PW8 second IO SI Kuldeep in his cross examination admitted that no photography or videography at the spot was made. Only seizure of the fake currency note was exhibited by SI Sri Krishan in his examination in chief. No reason is explained by the prosecution for aforesaid omission.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 41 of 56 42
73. Besides the table at which the notes were laid while photographing, is claimed to be abandoned by this witness, however, in the statement made by PW3 SI Rajbir, it is stated that the table belonged to one juice seller, it appears that both the witnesses have stretched their imagination, however, to no avail as even the owner of this table is not detailed except that of the juice seller and no excuse is explained for not joining him in the investigation.
74. PW2 SI Sri Krishan as well as second IO SI Kuldeep have also remained inconsistent from record by claiming that statement of PW2 was recorded at the spot by SI Kuldeep which fact is contrary as is shown in the statement Mark PW8/1 where it is recorded that statement of SI Sri Krishan was taken at the PS.
75. There are sharp inconsistencies in the statements qua sighting of both accused persons. As per the statement of UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 42 of 56 43 SI Sri Krishan both the accused were on motorcycle when they arrived at spot whereas in his own cross examination he contradicted and claimed that the accused came on foot. There is no seizure of any motorcycle.
76. Qua the authenticity of the site plan also, there are material contradiction in the statement of his witness as well as second IO as he claims to have told by pointing the position of each personnel of police party at the time of raid. However, no such placement of position is depicted by IO SI Kuldeep in this site plan Ex.PW2/C.
77. Regarding the arrival of police party at the spot from PS again the witnesses have made inconsistent statements. As per PW2 he went in his own car WagonR of gray colour but as per the statement of other witnesses, they went in a private vehicle and the driver could not detailed the name of the owner to whom with vehicle they travelled belonged.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 43 of 56 44
78. The spot where the apprehension was made is commercial area. The time of the day at which the occurrence and other proceedings are reported, which took about two and half to three hours approximately are of the prime time of the day when the area must have been thronged by many. Even there are small permanent establishment of Pan etc. but no attempt is made for joining of any public witness.
79. Regarding the statement of PW9 who had sent the recovered articles at FSL, it is clearly laid on record that FSL returned three pullandas. On scrutiny, these three pullandas are of the seized machinery, i.e., printer, CPU and monitor. In the absence of any examination of these machineries, there is no evidence to connect any part or process of manufacturing of counterfeit notes.
80. No attempt is made by IO for making the notes connected to even the alleged recovery made of a printer of 'Canon' UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 44 of 56 45 allegedly recovered from the parking of PW1. There is no material except disclosure Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B to suggest that the notes were scanned and printed through these machines and in the absence of any such evidence, these disclosures are not proved since no recovery can be believed to have been made on the basis of these disclosures.
81. The IO made no attempt even to collect the papers on which the notes are printed and or the cartridge/ ink as whether it was of colour or black & white, to support that different notes could be counterfeited with their assistance.
82. Qua the seizure of counterfeit notes again a material lacuna is made as Ct. Pramod who allegedly took cursory search of both accused persons did not offer any of his own search creating clouds over the entire seizure of counterfeit currency.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 45 of 56 46
83. On the basis of FSL report exhibited by PW5 and further statement of PW7 from Currency Notes Press, Nasik, again material which has come on record is insufficient to prove the commission of an offence under Section 489C for which also both accused are charged.
84. At it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the currency allegedly seized from the accused persons is counterfeit which is defined under Section 28 IPC as under: IPC SECTION 28. "Counterfeit". A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.
85. A close scrutiny of both the reports of FSL suggest that the notes sent for the purposes of examination are opined / observed as below:
(i) All 193 currency notes bearing the same Registration number UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 46 of 56 47 i.e., 3FD 090786.
(ii) The dimension of the currency notes are smaller as compared to genuine currency notes.
(iii) The paper of the currency notes is ordinary Xerox paper and not the 100% cottonfibre as used in genuine currency notes.
(iv) The currency notes do not exhibit any UVfluorescene feature.
(v) The watermark of Mahatma Gandhi is completely absent.
(vi) The printing 'Mahatma Gandhi' & 'Mahatma Gandhi' below the portrait quite dull as compared to the printings in genuine currency note.
(vii) Arm of Spectacle of Mahatma Gandhi do to exhibit sharp rectangulardesign as found in genuine currency note.
(viii) The Ink used in printing and Currencynote do not exhibit OVI effect.
(ix) Crisscross lines found on the LHS windowpanel is absent.
(x) The overall printing do not match as found in genuine currency note.
(xi) The currency notes do not exhibit SeeThrough Register feature.
(xii) There is no SecurityThread inserted as found in genuine currency note.
(xiii) Absence of Microprintings on the right of Mahatma Gandhi portrait.
The above discrepancies indicate that all the 193 (one hundred ninetythree) Currency Notes of denomination Rs. 100/ (hundred) marked Q1 to Q193 are Counterfeit.
86. Perusal of this report clearly shows that there is no UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 47 of 56 48 element of any "genuine" currency notes which could be found in the notes sent for FSL and even it is observed that the paper used for the purposes of currency is ordinary "xerox" paper. The dimension of currency notes are smaller to as compared to genuine currency notes. The currency notes did not exhibit any UV flourscent feature thereby making it clear even apparently that they are not genuine. The question that now is to be examined is whether such notes are capable to be "palmed off" as genuine currency notes and or can be circulated as such in place of genuine currency notes. Apparently as any currency note lacking all aforesaid features can be made out to be a fake and is not capable of being passed off and due to this reason no evidence in this matter is placed to show that the notes seized from the possession of the accused is capable of circulation as genuine notes and for this reason alone, the necessary ingredients of Section UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 48 of 56 49 489C are not made out.
87. Further, the necessary evidence qua intention of accused to use these notes, and or them found circulating such notes is also not brought on record. The necessary "mens rea" is completely lacking as the two conditions which are part of Section 489C IPC that the notes in possession of the accused to their own knowledge were fake and that they intended to use these fake notes as genuine is not exhorted on record.
88. In (1931 (32) Cri LJ 351), (Bur Singh Vs. Emperor) it is held:
"It should be borne in mind that mere possession of forged notes is not an offence under the Indian Penal Code and in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 489C of IPC.
It is not only necessary to prove that the accused was in possession of forged notes but it should be further UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 49 of 56 50 established (a) that at the time of his possession he knew the note to be forged or had reason to believe them to be so and (b) that he intended to use them as genuine or that they might be used as genuine."
89.Also in AIR 1961 Patna 405: (1961 (2) Cri LJ 536), Ragho Saran Sao Vs. The State), it is held: "For an offence under section 489C Penal Code it is essential to establish that the accused intended to use the forged notes as genuine and that they might be used as genuine.... sitting in his verandah all alone, it could not conclusively be inferred that, while possessed of the forged notes the accused also intended to use them as genuine and his conviction could not be upheld."
90.As also in Air 1979 SC 1705: (1979 Cri LJ 1383), (M. Mammutti, Vs. State of Karnataka), it is observed: "There is no evidence of any witness UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 50 of 56 51 to show that the counterfeit notes were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them would convince any person of average intelligence that it was a counterfeit note. Nor was any such question put to the accused under Section 342, Cr.
PC made before the committing court the accused has made a statement different from that made in the Sessions Court and therefore the appellant had reason to believe that notes in his possession were counterfeit notes...... We are not able to find any inconsistency between the answer given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 before the Sessions Judge and that before the Committing Court specially on the point that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit... No such evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 51 of 56 52 notes also. In these circumstances, it is impossible for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant".
91.In 1990 Cri. L 215, (Madan Lal Sarma Vs. The State), wherein a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held: "under section 489B, IPC, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused was passing the notes he knew that it was a forged one. The mere possession of it by him does not shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocence possession of it by him does not shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocence possession of the forged note. Similarly, under section 489C, it is to be proved that the accused intended to use the forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it might be used as genuine. It is for the prosecution to prove the circumstances which would UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 52 of 56 53 irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the accused had the intention to introduce surreptitiously the note on the public. Thus knowledge or reason to believe that the note was forged has to be proved to fix the liability under section 489 B and 489C.
Unless it is found that the accused had the knowledge or reason to believe that the said questioned note was forged one, the question of his palming it off as genuine could not arise."
92.In, 1997 Cri. LJ 3188, (Mohd. Yasin Vs. State of U.P.), wherein also a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has applied the norms of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the earlier judgment reported in 1990 Cri. LJ 215 for one and the same proposition of law.
93.The next judgment on this aspect is one reported in (2001) 1 Mad LW Town Police Station, Virudhunagar District) it is held: UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 53 of 56 54 "A bare reading of Section 489 C would clearly indicate that there should be sufficient knowledge to the accused and he should have intention to use the same. Mere possession will not attract the offence under section 489C IPC".
94.Further, by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1982 Cri LJ 32 (Bachan Singh Vs. Teh State of Punjab), it is held: "In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 489C IPC, it was not only necessary to prove that the accused was in possession of forged notes but it should further be established that: (a) at the time of his possession he knew the notes to be forged or had the reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, and (b) he intended to use the same as genuine. Mere possession of forged or counterfeit notes is not an offence under the Penal Code."
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 54 of 56 55
95.I am supported in forming my view by the law laid down in judgment Uma Shankar versus State of Chhatisgarh, Crimes (2001) 4 Crimes 83 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Mansrea is very essential for conviction of economic offences under Section 489B and 489C of 1860. These provisions are not meant to punish very users or possession of fake currency notes and bank notes."
96.In circumstance above, the ingredients necessary to establish the commission of offence for which accused is charged,i.e., Section 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 120B IPC are not established. The evidence produced is highly deficient and points towards the improbability of an offence having taken place in the manner explained.
97.In view of the above discussions, accused persons namely Devender @ Lucky @ Kalta and Lakshay Luthra @ Manu are acquitted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 489A, 489B and 489C read with Section 120B IPC.
UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 55 of 56 56
98.The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons are extended for a period of 6 months in terms of Section 437A of the Cr. P. C.
99.File be consigned to record room after completion of the necessary formalities.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 12th April, 2019 (NIRJA BHATIA) ASJ03, WEST/DELHI UID No. 57570/2016 State vs. Lakshay Lutra etc. 56 of 56