Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Branch : Cbi, EouV/EoIi, New Delhi Cbi vs . Kulwant Rai. Pages 1 Of 20 on 28 January, 2017Matching Fragments
(i) During investigation, the identity of above said Kuldeep Singh Dua was confirmed and a Look Out Circular (LOC) was got issued against him on 20.09.2012.
(j) During investigation, the officials of customs authorities and independent witnesses associated with seizure were examined and claimed that finding of one currency note each less of Rs 1000/- denomination and Rs 500/- denomination was a human error which took place during the counting of seized FICNs.
(k) It has been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet by the IO that during investigation neither accused Kulwant Rai could produce any material in support of his claim that seized FICNs were handed over to him by Kuldeep Singh Dua @ Kuldeep Singh at Bangkok for its further delivery to some one in India nor any evidence could emerge in support of his above said claim or to establish the involvement of Kuldeep Singh Dua @ Kuldeep Singh in the instant case. It was further mentioned in the charge sheet by the IO that no case could be made out against Kuldeep Singh Dua @ Kuldeep Singh with the evidence collected during the investigation. The record would infact show that said Kuldeep Singh has been kept in Col. No. 12 of the charge sheet as not charge sheeted.
16 PW11 Inspector Mohit Kumar, CBI is the IO of the case. The arrest memo dated 15.09.2012 qua the accused is Ex PW11/A and the permission from the learned court in that regard is Ex PW11/B. He inter alia deposed that during the search at the residence of the accused, one e-ticket in respect of accused dated 03.09.2012 of Thai Royal Ticketing was recovered which is Ex PW11/C. The order dated 15.12.2012 of the court of learned ACMM (West) vide which de-sealing of the packet for the purpose of preparing an inventory of actual alleged currency notes with their relevant particulars was allowed has been proved as Ex PW11/D. He inter alia deposed that during the examination of the relevant witnesses it came on record that the discrepancy (regarding total number of notes) crept in the cause of human error. The sealed cover in which the expert report Ex PW9/E was received in the office of CBI from BNP, Dewas is Ex PW11/E. The charge sheet has been proved as Ex PW11/F. The FIR dated 13.09.2012 of this case is Ex PW11/G. The e-challan is Ex PW11/J and the hash value certificate is Ex PW11/H. 17 Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 16.11.2016 by the learned predecessor of this court. In the said statement, the accused denied the material incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence on record against him. He inter alia stated that his statement was obtained under pressure by the customs officials. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case and the FICNs were planted upon him by the Custom officials. He preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
18 I have heard the final arguments and perused the record.
19 Learned PP for CBI argued that by the testimony of PW2,PW3 and PW7 the prosecution has been able to prove that the FICNs to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs were recovered from the accused in the intervening night of 11/12.09.2012 at IGI Airport. She argued that the accused was found trafficking in FICNs and was also found in FIR No. : RC 220 2012 E0019 EOUV/EOII U/S : 489B/489C IPC Branch : CBI, EOUV/EOII, New Delhi CBI Vs. Kulwant Rai. Pages 10 of 20 possession of said FICNs to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs knowing and having reasons to believe the same to be a forged and counterfeited and intending to use them as genuine. She contended that the prosecution /CBI has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed that the accused should be convicted under section 489B / 489C IPC. She further contended that the accused in his statement under section 108 Customs Act, 1962 Ex PW1/A has admitted his guilt. IO in the presence of learned PP for CBI argued that the discrepancy regarding the number of currency notes as mentioned in panchnama of customs Ex PW2/B as highlighted in letter Ex PW9/B was only due to some human error by the Customs officials and also due to wrong application of some computer software by them. Ld. PP for CBI argued that permission was taken from the court after which fresh panchnama was prepared by CBI on 22.12.2012 in the presence of recovery witnesses of the Airport and also in the presence of PW4. She contended that the report Ex PW9/E from BNP,Dewas, M.P. would show that the recovered notes were counterfeit notes. She also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case K.Hashim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal ( CRL)185 of 2004 as decided on 17.11.2014. She thus prayed that the accused be convicted in this case us 489B/489C.
25 It would be pertinent to mention that the IO in the presence of learned PP for CBI argued that the discrepancies regarding the number of currency notes as mentioned in the panchnama Ex PW2/B as highlighted in letter Ex PW9/B was only due to some human error by the customs officials and also due to wrong application of some computer software by them. In that regard, PW 11/ IO has inter alia deposed in his examination in chief that during the examination of relevant witnesses it came on record that the said discrepancies crept in because of human error. Firstly, no mention of any wrong application of any computer software has been mentioned in the testimony of PW11 or any other material witness including PW2, PW3 and PW7. Secondly, as discussed above, the CBI has also failed to prove that the said material discrepancies were only due to some human error which has also not been deposed or explained by any witness and specifically by the witnesses PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW11. Moreover, when serial numbers of some notes are either missing or found and did not tally with the actual currency, then it can not be said that it was only a case of human error. In fact all the proceedings of the customs department including the alleged recovery of FICNs, panchnama Ex PW2/B along with its annexures and all related proceedings of the customs become highly doubtful and unworthy of any credence. The CBI and the IO through subsequent proceedings Ex PW3/A / Ex PW3/B would not be and in fact have not been able to explain the said material discrepancies. It is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution.