Judgment:
1 ® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.660 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF2011C/W C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.338 OF2011C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.360 OF2009C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.457 OF2009C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.414 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.660 OF2009 BETWEEN:
1. ANAND @ ANAND THORAT S/O SH.GAJANAN, AGED ABOUT26YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.389/A, 23RD CROSS, 17TH ‘A’ MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU.
2. SOHAIL @ SOHAIL KHAN S/O IQBAL AHMED, 2 AGED ABOUT31YEARS, R/AT NEAR MASJID, TABIB LAND, HUBBALLI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: CBI POLICE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF CRL.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENTOF CONVICTION DATED154.2009 AND
ORDERON SENTENCE DATED174.2009 PASSED IN S.C.NO.105 OF2005BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT), COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED2& 4 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS255 256, 258, 259 & 260 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 4 EACH SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/-EACH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION255OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B)IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE EACH OF THE ABOVE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, FURTHER THEY SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- EACH FOR THE OFFENCE3PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION258OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE EACH OF THE ABOVE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AND FURTHER EACH SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/-EACH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION259OF IPC READ WITH120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE EACH OF THE ABOVE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO EACH OF THE ACCUSED FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE
ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF FINE. THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE
ORDERMAY BE SET ASIDE. ***** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF2011 BETWEEN: ILLIAS AHMED S/O ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, R/AT CHALUVADI CHAL JAI BHIMA NAGAR, DHARWAD. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: C.B.I. POLICE. ... RESPONDENT4(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERDATED1504.2009 / 17.04.2009 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.105 OF2005- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS255 256, 258, 259 and 260 READ WITH120B) IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION255OF IPC READ WITH120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION258IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION259IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO THE ACCUSED FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE
ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY EXECEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE. ***** 5 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.338 OF2011 BETWEEN: IBRAHIM HUDLI @ SADIQ IBRAHIM HUDLI S/O IBRAHIM, NO.14/54, STATION ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: C.B.I. POLICE REPRESENTED BY *SRI C.H.JADHAV CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING PREMISES, BENGALURU CITY. ... RESPONDENT *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDERDATED253.2011. (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENTOF CONVICTION DATED:
15. 4.2009 AND
ORDERON SENTENCE DATED174.2009 PASSED IN S.C.NO.105 OF2005BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT), COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS255 258, 259 OF IPC IPC. AND THE READ WITH SECTION120B) OF6APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION255OF IPC R/W SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 SHALL UNDERGO R.I.FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION258OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B)OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION259OF IPC READ WITH120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED TO THE ACCUSED FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE
ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF FINE. ***** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.360 OF2009 BETWEEN: SYED MOHIYUDDHIN S/O LATE SYED AHMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT58YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.209/L, 5TH CROSS, 7 MINHAJ NAGAR, J.P.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 078. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: *C.B.I POLICE, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDERDATED0306.2009. (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT/S AGAINST THE
JUDGMENTDATED15H DAY OF APRIL2009PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, 35TH ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN S.C.NO.105 OF2005- CONVICTING HIM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS255 256, 258, 259, 260, 212 AND201IPC READ WITH SECTION120B)IPC AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.7 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION255IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION258IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS8IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION259IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF3YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION201OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMNET OF FINE FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE
ORDERMAY BE SET ASIDE. ***** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.457 OF2009 BETWEEN: SRI T.G.SANGRAM SINGH S/O LATE T.GOVIND SINGH, AGED ABOUT61YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27, V CROSS, THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BENGALURU . ... APPELLANT (BY SRI S.SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: C.B.I. POLICE, 9 BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENTOF CONVICTION DATED154.2009 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, 35TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.
(SPECIAL COURT), BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.105 OF2005- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT /ACCUSED NO.8 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS212 217, 218, 201 AND221OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) OF IPC. AND THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.8 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF3YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION218OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B)OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE AS
ORDERED ABOVE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. AND FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO SENTENCE OF RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF3YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION221OF IPC READ WITH120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, FURTHER HE SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN-CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. **** 10 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.414 OF2009 BETWEEN: MR.ABDUL KAREEM LADSAB TELIGI AGED ABOUT48YEARS, S/O LATE LADSAB TELIGI, NO.56/58, MINT ROAD, KHESTI BUILDING, G.P.O., MUMBAI. AND NO.5, 1ST FLOOR, SHRIRIN MANZIL, WALTON ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CITY MARKET POLICE, BENGALURU, NOW INVESTIGATED BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BALLARI ROAD, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION3742) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED1504.2009 / 17.04.2009 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, 35TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT), COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO:
105. OF2005- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS255 256, 258, 259, 260 AND212& 201 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120(B)OF IPC. AND11THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.50,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION255OF IPC READ WITH120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. AND THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION258OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF7YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS. 25,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION259OF IPC READ WITH SECTION120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. AND THE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF3YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000-00 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION201OF IPC READ WITH120B) OF IPC. IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ABOVE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE ACCUSED FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES ARE
ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY EXCEPT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF FINE. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. PRAYS ***** 12 THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENTAll these appeals arise out of the trial of some of the cases, which came to be known as the infamous “Telgi Stamp Paper Scam”. According to the prosecution - Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’ for brevity) the scam was to an extent of almost Rs.25,000/- Crores (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Crores).
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 5 were working for M/s. Citizen Enterprises, which had its office at Jayanagar, Bengaluru and also at Brigade Garden, Church Street, Bengaluru. That accused nos.1 to 5 were staying in a Hotel by name Shalimar, at City Market, Bengaluru, during the year 1996-97. Accused no.6, Abdul Rahim Lad Sab Telgi, is the elder brother of accused no.9, Abdul Kareem Telgi. Accused no.9 was supervising the day-to day affairs of the office of M/s.Citizen Enterprises at 13 Jayanagar and at Brigade Garden, Church Street, Bengaluru. Accused No.7, was the proprietor of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, which had its office at Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Accused No.8, was working as an Inspector of Police in the City Market Police Station during the relevant period of time. Accused no.9 Abdul Karim Telgi, was the kingpin of the stamp paper racket. Accused no.10 was also an employee of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Accused No.11, was a Doctor who was a close associate of the accused. Accused No.12, was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, City Market Police Station.
3. That Accused No.7 had obtained a stamp vending licence in his name on 06.03.1996. It was thereafter renewed upto 31.03.1998. The licence was to sell non-judicial stamps upto Rs.25,000/-, judicial stamp upto 1,000/- Court fee stamps, copying sheets and Hundi papers. The licence did not permit him to sell any other type of stamps, stamp papers, etc. Accused No.7 opened a proprietary firm in the name of ‘M/s.Citizen Enterpises’ at 14 No.51/22, 3rd Floor, 8th E Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and thereafter at No.19/1–56, Church Street, Brigade Gardens, Bengaluru. He was selling counterfeit stamps and forged stamps of all kinds, i.e., Special Adhesive Stamps, Insurance Stamps, Foreign Bill Stamps, Postal Stamps etc., for which he had no licence. He was selling the said stamps with the involvement and conspiracy of the other Accused nos.1 to 5 and 9 and 10 in Bengaluru, through his firm. He had got the Kannada word ‘Karnataka’ printed on the stamp i.e., on the Bill Stamps of Rs.100/- denomination, Share Transfer Stamps of Rs.100/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.5/-, Rs.1/- denominations, Foreign Bill Stamps of Rs.20/- denomination, Insurance Stamps of Rs.2/- denomination, Insurance stamps of Rs.1/- denomination, for selling to various organisation in Karnataka. That Accused Nos.1 to 5 along with Accused No.6 and 8, were staying in Hotel Shalimar, at No.127 and 128, N.R. Road, City Market, Bengaluru in Room Nos.101 and 104. 15 4. On 10.04.1997, the then Police Inspector, City Market Police Station, Bengaluru city, along with other police officials and panchas conducted a raid on the said rooms of Hotel Shalimar. They apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 5 being the employees of M/s. Citizen Enterprises and also Accused No.6, along with two folded newspapers containing the stamps of different denominations, three green color covers containing counterfeit stamps of different denominations, nine covers of Shalimar paints containing stamps of different denominations, two bundle of postal stamps and various other material which were seized.
5. On 10.04.1997 at 8.30 p.m., Accused No.8, took the Accused Nos.1 to 6 to the city market police station and conducted a seizure mahazar. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were kept in the lock up. Accused no.6 was asked to sit outside. The same day Accused Nos.7, 9 and 11, approached Accused Nos.8 and 12 and all of them 16 conspired together for the release of Accused No.6 and for not including him in the FIR, etc. Accused No.8 on receiving an illegal gratification through Accused No.12 from Accused No.9, did not show the presence of Accused No.6 in the records pertaining to the raid and seizure. He only showed the names of Accused Nos.1 to 5 in the mahazar. Thereby, he illegally released Accused No.6 from the police station.
6. It is the further case of the prosecution that the Hotel in which the raid was conducted was not within the jurisdiction of the city market police station. Accused No.8 had no authority to conduct the raid or the investigation, since the same came under the jurisdiction of the Kalasipalya Police Station. Notwithstanding the same, he proceeded to conduct the investigation and also filed the charge-sheet. He allowed Accused Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10 to escape from the clutches of law. Thereafter, Accused No.8 filed a charge-sheet against Accused Nos.1 17 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section – 473 of IPC alone. No other offences were charged against the Accused. That only a few stamps were sent to the Indian Security Press at Nasik for getting the Genuineness Report. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Citizen Enterprises had sold stamps worth Rs.1,30,625/- to Indian Bank, Raheja Towers, M.G.Road, Bengaluru, out of which Rs.3,145/- were genuine stamps. Likewise stamps sold to M/s.Citizen Enterprises Limited worth Rs.29,866/-, were not genuine and the impression ‘Karnataka’ was also forged. In the same manner, various instances were narrated with regard to sale of stamps and receipt of money. The sale were of counterfeit stamps and that the money was deposited in the accounts opened by Accused No.7 in the name of M/s.Citizen Enterprises. Therefore, Accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 and 10 indulged in the manufacturing and selling of fake stamps in Bengaluru, in the name of M/s.Citizen Enterprises and the sale proceeds were shared by all the Accused. That Accused nos.8 and 18 12 namely, the officers attached to the City Market Police Station, at the instance of Accused No.11, colluded with Accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 and 10 in connection with the above fake business and records were manipulated.
7. It is relevant to notice that the initial investigation was made by Accused no.8. On such an investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section – 473 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced. His evidence was being recorded. At that stage, the stamp paper racket was unearthed. Various proceedings were initiated before the High court of Karnataka as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 15.03.2004 passed in W.P.(Civil) No.522 of 2003 and the subsequent notification of the government of India dated 23.03.2004 and various other notifications, directed that the investigation be handed over to the CBI. Therefore, the CBI took up the investigation of the cases in all matters pertaining to the 19 stamp racket. One such case is the present case. The CBI having taken up the investigation, added Accused Nos.7 to 12 by filing a supplementary charge-sheet. 24 charges were framed. Therefore, the trial proceeded against all the 12 accused.
8. Even before the charge-sheet could be filed by the CBI, Accused No.6 died. Therefore, Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 12 were charged for the offences punishable under Section – 255, 256, 258, 259, 465, 467, 468, 471, 210, 217, 218, 221 201, 260 read with Section-120B of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Section – 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section-120B of IPC with reference to Accused Nos.8 and 12. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses and marked 213 exhibits, along with 113 material objects. The statements of the Accused under Section-313 were recorded. They denied the case of the prosecution. Accused No.8 examined DW-1 as his 20 defence witness Exhibits D1 to D4, were marked as defence documents on behalf of the Accused. On conclusion of the trial Accused Nos.1 to 5 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section – 255 256, 258, 260 read with Section-120-B. Accused Nos.7, 9 and 10 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section – 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 210, 212 of IPC read with Section – 120-B of IPC. The sentence were ordered to run concurrently except for the default sentence. Accused No.8 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 and 221 of IPC read with Section-120-B of IPC.
9. Accused No.11 was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 and 221 of IPC read with Section-120-B of IPC and also under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section-120-B of IPC. 21 Accused Nos.1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 were acquitted for the offences charged under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section-120-B of IPC. Accused No.8 was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections -13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section-120-B of I.P.C. They were sentenced as follows:
ORDER“i). The accused No.1/ Shanal Jamedar @ Badruddin, accused No.2/Anand @ Anand Thorat, accused No.3/Illiyas Ahmed, accused No.4/Sohail @ Sohail Khan, accused No.5/Ibrahim Hudli @ Sadiq Ibrahim, accused No.7/Syed Mohiddin, accused No.9/Abdul Kareem Lad Sab Telgi and accused No.10/Wazir Ahmed Salik Vazeer @ Md.Hameed Salik @ Shukth Ali each shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 255 22 IPC read with Section 120 (B) IPC. In default of payment of fine each of the above accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for period of one year. ii) The accused No.1/ Shanal Jamedar @ Badruddin, accused No.2/Anand @ Anand Thorat, accused No.3/Illiyas Ahmed, accused No.4/Sohail @ Sohail Khan, accused No.5/Ibrahim Hudli @ Sadiq Ibrahim, accused No.7/Syed Mohiddin, accused No.9/Abdul Kareem Lad Sab Telgi and accused No.10/Wazir Ahmed Salik Vazeer @ Md.Hameed Salik @ Shukth Ali each shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 258 IPC read with Section 120 (B) IPC. In default of payment of fine each of the above accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for period of six months. iii) The accused No.1/ Shanal Jamedar @ Badruddin, accused No.2/Anand @ Anand Thorat, accused No.3/Illiyas Ahmed, accused No.4/Sohail @ Sohail Khan, accused 23 No.5/Ibrahim Hudli @ Sadiq Ibrahim, accused No.7/Syed Mohiddin, accused No.9/Abdul Kareem Lad Sab Telgi and accused No.10/Wazir Ahmed Salik Vazeer @ Md.Hameed Salik @ Shukth Ali each shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 259 IPC read with Section 120 (B) IPC. In default of payment of fine each of the above accused shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for period of six months. iv) The accused No.7/Syed Mohiddin, accused No.9/Abdul Kareem Lad Sab Telgi and accused No.10/Wazir Ahmed Salik Vazeer @ Md.Hameed Salik @ Shukth Ali each shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine each of the above accused shall under further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 24 v) The accused No.8/T.G.Sangram Singh shall undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 218 IPC read with Section 120(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine as ordered above, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. vi) The accused No.8/T.G.Sangram Singh shall undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.25,000-00 for the offence punishable under Section 221 IPC read with Section 120 (B) IPC. In default of payment of fine as ordered above, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.” 10. Aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.2 and 4 have filed Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2009, Accused No.3 has filed Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2011, Accused No.5 has filed Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2011, Accused No.7 has filed Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2009, Accused No.8 has filed Criminal Appeal No.457 of 2009, Accused No.9 25 has filed Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2009. The appeal filed by accused No.10 in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn by the order of this Court on 08.03.2016. Criminal Appeal No.672 of 2011 filed by accused No.1 was disposed off by the orders of this Court dated 16.08.2017, by according the benefit of Section-428 of Cr.P.C.
11. Even though a large number of witnesses and a huge number of exhibits and material objects were placed for consideration before the Trial Court, the learned counsels restrict their submissions only to the evidence of the specific witnesses which is referable to the respective appellants. It is their plea that consideration of the relevant evidences would be sufficient for the just disposal of the appeals. Hence, each one of these appeals will be considered with reference to the respective appellants.
12. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 26 I Crl.A.No.660 of 2009, Crl.A.No.510 of 2011 and Crl.A.No.338 of 2011 :
1. Crl.A.660 of 2009 is filed by Accused Nos.2 and 4 Crl.A.No.510 is filed by Accused No.3 Crl.A.No.338 of 2011 is filed by Accused No.5.
2. The case of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5, is based on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-9 and PW-11. 3.(a) PW-1 is the Retired Police Sub-Inspector. From 1996 till October 1997, he worked as the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in City Market Police Station, Bengaluru City. On 10.04.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., accused No.8, Sri.T.G.Sangram Singh, the Inspector of Police called him to his room in the Police Station. On that day, he was directed to control traffic, in view of fact that the dead-body of Sri.Subbaiah, who was working as a Police Constable, was being taken through the said route. 27 After performing the said duty, accused no.8, directed PW- 1 and Sri.Shivkumar to go to Hotel Shalimar, N.R. Road, Bengaluru. When he went to Hotel Shalimar, Accused Nos.8 and 12 were already present there. They all went to room No.101 and 104 and knocked at the door. On opening the door, Accused Nos.8 and 12, went inside the above two rooms and others were standing outside. It was about 3-4 p.m. After about 1 to 1 ½ hours, accused Nos.8 and 12 and another Police Officer, Sri.Vali Basha and about 5-6 persons came outside the room. Suitcases and bags were also brought by them from the said two rooms. PW-1 and Shivkumar went down from the said rooms. Accused No.8 directed them to go to the Police Station by walk. Accused No.8 took the said 5-6 persons in the police jeep. Accused No.8 and 12 and Sri.Vali Basha and the 5-6 persons travelled in the police jeep. PW-1 and Shivkumar and others went by walk. Hotel Shalimar is at a walking distance from the Police Station. Half-an-hour later, they reached the police station. 28 (b). Accused No.8 gave PW-1 a piece of paper and dictated the matter to be written by him. Accused No.8, dictated the mahazar, which was reduced to writing. He was asked to sign it. Therefore, he signed the mahazar. The same is marked as Exhibit-P1. It bears his signature. Exhibit-P2 is a seizure report that was also written by him and he has identified the signatures on the same. The persons who were apprehended by Accused no.8 were kept in the police lock up. (c). One person fell down in the lock-up. Vali Basha and accused No.12 took the said person outside the lock- up and took him to hospital. On the next day morning, when he came to the police station, out of six persons, only five persons were in the lock up. The names of all accused Nos.1 to 5 were written in Exhibits-P1 and P2 as per the dictation and direction of Accused No.8. (d). After about 8 to 10 days, accused No.8 gave him 5-6 packets containing stamps. He was directed by 29 accused No.8 to go to Nasik along with Sri.Venkatappa, Constable of the Police Station. Thereafter, they went to India Security Press at Nasik. The officials of the Press opened the packets. The face value of the stamps was about Rs.1,44,790/-. They were asked to deposit Rs.1/- per stamp. They were asked to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as fees. As they had not carried that much money, he contacted accused No.8 from Nasik. Accused No.8 asked them to once again contact the officials of the Press. He contacted them. The officials told them that one sample stamp from each sheet could be brought to the Press for the purpose of examination. However, no stamps were given to the officials of the Press. Thereafter, he and Venkatappa returned to Bengaluru with the said packets of stamps. He returned the packets to accused No.8. About 5-6 later, accused No.8 gave him one packet containing sample stamps to be carried to Nasik. He and Venkatappa again went to Nasik. A letter with the packet containing 30 stamps were given to Officials of the India Security Press. Thereafter they returned to Bengaluru. (e). At that stage, the Public Prosecutor submitted that he intends to treat the witness as hostile, since he was resiling from the statement made by him under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. The same was permitted. The witness was cross-examined by the State Public Prosecutor. During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 identified his statement made under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. He identified his signature on the same. He has identified the five persons other than accused No.6 namely, Ram Lal Telgi, who was also in the police station. That accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and Sri.Sheik Ibrahim were kept in the police lock up. That Accused No.6 was made to sit outside the lock up. That accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 namely, Sri.Shanal, Jamadar, Sri.Anand, Sri.Sohail and Sri.Sheik Ibrahim were kept in the police lock-up. He admits to the fact that three or four persons came to the police station with him. Accused No.8, Accused No.12, Sri.Vali Basha and Head 31 Constable Sri. Shivkumar conspired together. That he prepared the charge-sheet in Crime No.109/1997, namely the charge-sheet filed by accused No.8, in terms of Exhibit-P6. He admits his handwriting and that accused No.8 has signed the charge-sheet. (f). He admits to the fact that accused No.6 was shown as absconding. In the cross-examination, he has also identified the material objects. At para-82 of the cross-examination, he has stated that if he presently sees all the five accused persons, he would not be able to identify them. 4.(a) PW-2 was a Police Constable in Market Police Station, Bengaluru from 1995 to 2000. He has stated in his evidence that on 10.04.1997, he was entrusted the duty of taking rounds in the area under the jurisdiction of the City Market Police Station. At about 3.30 p.m., when he was in the Police Station, accused No.8 called him to his Chamber and told him, that he had received a telephonic 32 information, with regard to certain persons camping in Hotel Shalimar, N.R.Road, Bengaluru and who are doing illegal activities and he should accompany him. He, accused No.8, Vali Basha and accused No.12, went in the Police Jeep to Hotel Shalimar. On the way, PW-1 was picked up and they went to Hotel Shalimar. The PSI knocked at the door of Room No.104 of Hotel Shalimar. The inmates opened the door. There were five persons inside the room. Accused No.8 made PW-1 and him to stand outside the door of the room. Accused No.8 made enquiries with the persons who were in Room No.104. Accused Nos.8, 12 and Vali Basha went to Room No.101. There was one person who was aged about 45 to 50 years inside the room. Accused No.8 brought him and two others to Room No.104 along with one bag. Thereafter, they went to Room No.101, where another bag was seized. After enquiry with the said persons, accused Nos.8, 12 and Vali Basha and the other persons came to the ground floor of the hotel. All the six persons were taken by accused 33 No.8 and made to sit in the Police Jeep and then, they all went to the police station. He and PW-1 went to the Police Station by walk. After he reached the Police Station, he noticed that five persons were lodged in the lock-up of the Police Station. One person aged 45 to 50 years who was a bit fat, was made to sit outside the lock-up of the Police Station. Accused No.12 and Vali Basha were talking with accused No.8 in the Police Station. At that time, he left the Police Station. He returned back at about 9.30 p.m. He found the same persons in the lock up. The person who was outside the lock up, was not present at that time. (b). Sri.Muddumadaiah, the Inspector of Police in CCB, recorded his statement. Sri.Vali Basha told him that he should state before Sri.Muddumadaiah that only five persons were brought by accused No.8 to the City Market Police Station even though there were six persons. As per the directions, he gave a statement to Sri.Muddumadaiah to the effect that only five persons were brought by accused No.8 to the City Market Police Station. No 34 mahazar was conducted or drawn on 10.04.1997. During the cross-examination, he has stated that he has given a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate, which is in conformity with the statement made before the Investigation Officer. He admits that he has stated before the Magistrate that he cannot identify those five persons who were in the police lockup in the City Market Police Station at that time. That on the date of the evidence also, he cannot narrate the names of the five persons who were found in Hotel Shalimar on that day. Due to lapse of time, he cannot identify the five persons who were found in Hotel Shalimar on that day. 5.(a) PW-9, at that relevant point of time was in- charge of house keeping. Sri.Aslam was working as Manager of the Hotel on night duty. When the Police came to the Hotel, Aslam was in Room No.310. The police met PW-9 in the Hotel. Thereafter, through intercom, he contacted Sri.Aslam and he came from the room to the first floor of the hotel. Accused No.8 and Sri.Aslam talked 35 with each other. Accused No.8 after the talks, was angry with Sri.Aslam. Accused No.8 tried to assault Sri.Aslam by raising his right hand. But he did not assault Sri.Aslam. Accused No.8, Vali Basha and members of the Police Station, raided Room No.104 of Hotel Shalimar. (b). In Paragraphs No.8 and 9 of his evidence, he has narrated that based on the ledger of the Hotel vide Ex.P21, six persons were staying in Room Nos.101 and 104. (c). In the cross-examination, he has stated that four rooms were allotted to eight persons on 11.04.1997. Sri.Rahim Bhai checked into Room Nos.101 and 104 on 01.04.1997. In the cross-examination, he has stated that there is no entry against the date 10.04.1997 to the effect that Sri.Rahim Bhai and five others were in the above two rooms.
6. PW-11 sells vegetables on the footpath, in front of City Market, Bengaluru, since the last two decades. 36 He has stated that the Police Station is about 100 feet away from the place where he sells vegetables. About four or five years prior to the date of the incident, the Police came to his place in civil dress. They asked him to come to the City Market Police Station. The Police told him to sign on some papers in the Police Station. At that time, he asked the Police as to why he should sign the papers. At that time also, the Police told him to simply sign on the papers. He do not know the contents of the said document. In the cross-examination, he has narrated that he can read and write in Kannada and English. 7.(a) DW-1 is a fruit merchant. He was examined at the instance of accused No.8. The witness has stated that on 10.04.1997, while he was doing his business in City Market, he was called to the Police Station. He went to the City Market Police Station at about 8.00 p.m. Accused No.8 and one Kalegowda also came to the said Police Station subsequently. Accused No.8 informed him to 37 follow him to the nearby Shalimar Hotel. He, Kalegowda and Accused No.8 proceeded towards Shalimar Hotel and on the way, one Venkatesh, a Police official, also joined them. In all, five police officials along with two persons, as private persons, proceeded towards Shalimar Hotel. After reaching the Hotel, the police officials knocked on the door of Room No.104 on the first floor. The inhabitants of the said room did not open the door even after knocking the door on two occasions. Thereafter, on the third knock with force, they opened the door. After opening the door, accused No.8 and other police officials went inside the room. In the said room, they found in all five persons and also three to four suitcases. On opening the suitcases, stamps, rubberstamps and stamp papers were found. They also found cash of Rs.26,000/- in one of the suitcases. The witness could not identify what is the quantity of small stamps found in the suitcases but states that there were bulky bundles of small adhesive stamps. Thereafter, accused No.8 called one Venkataswamy, ASI to 38 write the mahazar. The mahazar was written by the said Venkataswamy at the dictation of accused No.8. Accused No.8 read over the contents of the mahazar by describing the 24 items of property seized and also the seizure of cash of Rs.26,000/-. Thereafter, they have signed the mahazar. One Kalegowda, present at that time, also signed the mahazar. Accused No.8 also signed the mahazar. PW-1, namely, the scribe of the mahazar also signed the same. He identifies the signature of ASI, Sri.Venkataswamy at Ex.P1(a) and so also the signatures of accused No.8 and Kalegowda. He identifies the property seized under the said mahazar at Room No.104 of Shalimar lodge. He can identify the five persons found in Room No.104 of Shalimar lodge. Accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 were produced through video conference. Accused No.2 was present in the Court. The witness identifies all the five accused. (b). The witness was cross-examined by the learned counsels for accused Nos.5 and 10. Nothing 39 worthwhile was elicited in the cross-examination. In the cross-examination by the CBI, he has denied the suggestion that he and PW-11 Kalegowda signed Ex.P1, the mahazar, at City Market Police Station and not at Hotel Shalimar as deposed in the examination-in-chief. He also denied the suggestion that he did not visit Room No.104 at Hotel Shalimar. He also denies the suggestion that he did not see accused Nos.1 to 5 at that place.
8. We have considered the evidences at length. PW-1 has clearly narrated with regard to the manner in which the arrest and the seizure took place. That five to six persons were arrested from Hotel Shalimar and taken to the police station. The mahazar was dictated to him by Accused No.8. He has signed it. Accused No.8 has also signed to the Mahazar, Exhibit-P1. There were five persons in the lock-up; one person was outside the lock-up. He was not well. In terms of seizure at MO-1 to MO-65 and MO-93 to 113, material objects were seized in terms as 40 narrated in Exhibit-P1. The stamps were sent to the Security Press at Nasik. They were all found to be fake stamps. The fact that the stamps have been proved to be counterfeit or fake is not seriously contested by the appellants counsel.
9. The evidence of PW-2 is also on the same lines. He has also identified 5-6 persons who were locked- up and one person who was slightly stout, who was outside the lock-up and Accused No.12 and Vali Basha was talking to accused No.8 in the Police Station. That he has given his statement under Section-164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, which is in conformity of the statement made before the Investigating Officer.
10. PW-11 who is a Vegetable Vendor, has stated that he was one of the witnesses to the Mahazar at Exhibit-P1. He has signed Exhibit-P1. However, he narrates that the Police asked him to sign on the paper. That he does not know the contents of the paper. 41 11.(a) The primary contention of the accused is based on the statement made by PW-1, in his cross- examination at Para-82. Therein, PW-1 stated that if the accused are shown to him at that point of time, he would not be able to identify the accused. Therefore, it is contended that when PW-1 is unable to identify the accused, the question of accepting his evidence would not arise for consideration. It is herein that the entire arguments of the appellant’s counsel rests on. (b). PW-1 is examined and cross-examined at length and the evidence runs to almost 35 pages. He has clearly narrated in the examination-in-chief, with regard to the identification of these accused and the manner in which they were arrested. The trial court on considering the statement made by him was of the view that a stray sentence of PW-1, cannot be relied upon to disprove the case of the prosecution. The material on record would also indicate that after the arrest of accused Nos. 1 to 5, they 42 were produced before the Magistrate on 11.04.1997. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any dispute so far as identification of these accused are concerned. Firstly is the fact that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 are consistent with regard to the identification of these accused and secondly, the fact that the accused were produced before the Magistrate. Therefore, their identity cannot be disputed. 12.(a) The further contention is that, there is a discrepancy as to where, the Mahazar, Exhibit-P1 was drawn. That PW-1 has stated that Exhibit-P1 was drawn in the Police Station. However, the evidence of DW-1 was to the effect that it was drawn in Hotel Shalimar. Therefore, it is contended that there is inconsistency in the evidence. Therefore, this goes to the root of the case. (b). Having considered the contentions, we are of the view that this contention cannot be accepted. There is consistent evidence led-in by the prosecution to show that 43 the accused were arrested at the Hotel and all the seizures were made from them from the Hotel itself. Therefore, even if there is a minor inconsistency as to whether the mahazar was drawn in the hotel or in the police station, would be inconsequential. It would really not affect the case of the prosecution, as to where the mahazar was drawn.
13. What is relevant and important is the fact of the arrest and the seizure of huge material objects. When the evidence with regard to these two issues are clear and cogent, the contention of the appellants on that front, therefore cannot be accepted.
14. It is relevant to note that PW-1 is the Police Inspector. It is not in dispute that the Mahazar, Exhibit-P1 was written by him under the dictation of accused No.8. At that time, accused no.8 was the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the oral evidence with regard to the issues at large would have to be appropriately and rightly answered 44 by accused no.8 himself, because he was the Investigating Officer. However, as narrated herein above, the investigation having been taken over by the CBI, the Investigating Officer was subsequently arrayed as accused No.8. Having been arrayed as accused No.8, there is no evidence forthcoming, with regard to the issue at large. Therefore, based on the evidence of PW-1, we are of the view that such a contention of the appellant cannot be accepted.
15. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that even though contentions were being advanced with regard to the acceptance of the evidence of PW-1, the fact is that PW-1 is a person, who only wrote down the Mahazar, Exhibit-P1, on the dictation of Accused No.8. At the most, he can be considered as a Scribe of the Mahazar. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 would necessarily have to be considered in that background. 45 16. Accused No.8 has led-in the evidence of DW- 1, who is a fruit merchant. He is one of the witnesses to Exhibit-P1. He was informed by accused No.8 to act as a witness to the mahazar. He has narrated the evidence as stated by PW-1 with regard to the arrest as well as the seizure. That the mahazar was signed by PW-1, accused No.8 as well as himself. He identifies properties seized under the mahazar. He has identified accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, who were produced through video conference and accused no.2 who was present in the Court. He has denied the suggestion that the mahazar was drawn in the Police Station and not at Hotel Shalimar.
17. The counsel for accused Nos.1 to 5 and 10 have also cross-examined DW-1. The counsel for CBI therefore contends that this evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction against the accused. That the evidence of DW-1 clearly implicates the accused / appellants. 46 18.(a) On the other hand, Sri.Sashidhar, learned counsel for the appellants disputes the same. He contends that the evidence that has been led-in, is on behalf of accused No.8. Therefore, the evidence of DW-1 is to be considered only so far as accused no.8 is concerned. Such an evidence cannot be relied upon in order to implicate the other accused. He therefore contends that the incriminating material as stated by DW-1 has not been put to him by the court in the statement under Section- 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he had no opportunity to answer the same. Therefore, such an incriminating material cannot be held against him. (b). On the contrary, the learned counsel for CBI relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (1) SCC496 in the case of NAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because the incriminating material has not been put to the accused in terms of Section-313 of Cr.P.C., that ground alone would not constitute a ground 47 to hold that the entire trial stands vitiated. That such incriminating material can be put to the accused, either by remanding the matter to the trial court or to question his counsel appearing before the High Court or the appellate court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went at length in discussing the issue of omission of the court to put question to the accused on any vital piece of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court listed the courses available to the appellate court when a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on a vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: “30. Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses available to the appellate court can be briefly summarised as under:
30. 1. Whenever a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C is raised, it is within the powers of the appellate court to examine and further examine the convict or the counsel 48 appearing for the accused and the said answers shall be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. If the accused is unable to offer the appellate court any reasonable explanation of such circumstance, the court may assume that the accused has no acceptable explanation to offer. 30.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no failure of justice was occasioned, the appellate court will hear and decide the matter upon merits. 30.3. If the appellate Court is of the opinion that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused from the point where the irregularity occurred, that is, from the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the trial Judge may be directed to examine the 49 accused afresh and defence witness, if any, dispose of the matter afresh. 30.4. The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial =court for retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of the case and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict and in the facts and circumstances of the case, may decide the appeal on its own merits, keeping in view the prejudice caused to the accused.” (c). Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we placed the said evidence for consideration of the appellants counsel and for his reply. He has replied to the evidence of DW-1 as follows: i) ii) that such incriminating evidence has been stated for the first time by DW-1; that the evidence is inconsistent with the statements of fact made by the prosecution witnesses; iii) the evidence has to be considered only so far as accused No.8 is concerned and not 50 applicable to him because, there is a conflict of interest vis-à-vis each one of the accused; iv) that the statements made by DW-1 are false. (d). The learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR1979SC826 in the case of S.P.BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, with reference to para – 44, to contend that the defence taken by one accused cannot in law be treated as evidence against the co-accused. (e). He further relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(1) SCC527 in the case of JARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, with reference to para -8, to contend that the prosecution cannot fall back upon the evidence adduced by the accused in support of their defence to rest its case solely upon such evidence of the accused. 51 (f). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC739in the case of NAGARAJ VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, TAMIL NADU, with reference to para nos. 14 and 15 to contend that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That the Court would not be correct in drawing an adverse inference against the accused only because what he has stated or what he has failed to state in his examination under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. (g). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in LAWS (ALL) 1949 58, in the case of CHANNU LAL VS. REX, with reference to para – 21, to contend that it would be proper for the Court to re-examine the accused with reference to the new evidence recorded in order to give an opportunity to the accused to give such further evidence in defence as may be necessary. 52 19.(a) On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P., disputes the same. He submits that the prosecution has proved its is case beyond all reasonable doubt and the conviction is not based on the statements of the accused made under Section- 313 of Cr.P.C. That the right of the accused has not been affected and there is no failure of justice. (b). In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC351 in the case of MUNSHI PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR, with reference to para – 3, to contend that the credibility and trustworthiness of the defence witness should be treated at par with that of the prosecution witnesses. That the defence witnesses cannot be treated differently from the prosecution witness. 20.(a) The first ground is that the incriminating material as stated in the evidence of DW-1 has been stated for the first time by the said witness. This 53 contention cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the question of the witness stating for the first time or not, is irrelevant. It was for the first time that the witness was being examined. Therefore, the question whether the statements have been made for the first time or not becomes irrelevant. (b). The second ground that the evidence is inconsistent with the statements of fact, made by the prosecution witnesses, cannot be accepted. The question of inconsistency with the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that of DW-1, is a matter of merit, which has been discussed at length herein above. (c). The further contention that the statements of DW-1 has to be considered only so far as accused No.8 is concerned and not with reference to the other accused is also misconceived. The Court would consider every piece of evidence that is led-in either by the prosecution or by 54 the defence. Truth may arise from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or from the evidence of the defence witnesses. Therefore, to state that the evidence is relatable only to the person who has rendered it therefore, cannot be accepted. (d). The further contention that the evidence of DW-1 is false, is again a matter of appreciation of evidence. (e). So far as the judgment in the case of S.P.BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the defence taken by one accused cannot in law be treated as evidence against the co-accused. The question of treating the evidence of DW-1 against the other appellants, is not being considered as a evidence against the other accused. The evidence as led-in by the prosecution is being considered in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond 55 reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution alone is being considered. The conviction of the accused therefore is not solely based on the evidence of DW-1 alone. Therefore, the said judgment would not come to the aid of the accused. (d). Reliance placed in the case of the JARNAIL SINGH’s case is also misplaced. Infact the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para-8 of the aforesaid judgment as follows: “8.xxxxx In the instant case, however, we find that the learned Courts below made use of the evidence of D.W.5 only for lending assurance to the conclusions already drawn by the learned Courts on the bases of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6. Such a course is legally and legitimately permissible, for D.W.5 was subjected to cross-examination – and in fact cross-examined – at the instance of the appellants after being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. That the appellant could not elicit any answer in his favour thereby would not alter the position as regards the 56 admissibility, relevancy or worth of the evidence of the above witness.” In the instant case also, DW-1 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor as well as by the other accused. Therefore, the relevancy or worth of the said witness would not alter with regard to the admissibility of the evidence. Therefore, the said judgment in fact, would assist the prosecution and not the accused. (e). So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 4 SCC739in the case of NAGARAJ VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, TAMIL NADU is concerned, there is no dispute with the same. No adverse inference could be drawn with regard to what the accused has stated or not stated in his statement under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. We are in complete agreement with the said principle as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, we are of the view that the said judgment would not aid the accused in view of the fact that no adverse inference is 57 being drawn against the accused. Therefore, the said judgment would also be of no avail to the accused. (f). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in LAWS (ALL) 1949 58, in the case of CHANNU LAL VS. REX, with reference to para – 21, wherein it was held that new evidence should be recorded to give an opportunity to the accused. We are of the view that the said judgment would not be applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of NAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA. Therefore, the judgment is of no avail to the accused . (g). The learned Spl.P.P., relies on the judgment in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC351 in the case of MUNSHI PRASAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR, with reference to para–3, to contend that the evidence of defence witnesses cannot be differentiated and treated different from that of the 58 prosecution witness. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went to hold in para-3 as follows: “3. xxxx Before drawing the curtain on this score, however, we wish to clarify that the evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one by reason of the factum of the witnesses being examined by the defence. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses on a par with that of the prosecution – a lapse on the part of the defence witnesses cannot be differentiated and be treated differently than that of the prosecutors’ witnesses.” 21. On considering the contentions and the judgments relied upon, we are of the view that based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA, the question of remand would not arise. Therefore, the said question was put to the learned counsel and he has answered to the 59 same. The appreciation of the said evidence is at the discretion of the Court.
22. The evidence of DW-1 is not being considered to prove the guilt against the accused. The evidence led-in by the prosecution alone is being considered to test the case of the prosecution. The infirmity in the evidence of the witnesses is of no consequence in proving the case of the prosecution. The accused having cross-examined DW-1, would therefore be covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JARNAIL SINGH’S case. Therefore, the fact would indicate that the incriminating evidence was well within the knowledge of the accused. It cannot be said that it is being considered behind his back, in view of the fact that the accused has cross-examined the witnesses. Therefore, that ground alone would seal the case of the accused.
23. On considering the evidence and on reappreciating the entire material and evidence on record, 60 we do not find any error committed by the trial court that calls for any interference. The trial court has rightly and justly considered the evidence and material on record. Each one of the evidence as led-in by the prosecution has been meticulously considered by the trial court. We do not find any perversity, either in the appreciation of the evidence or in reconsidering the material on record. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit require to be dismissed. 24.(a) With regard to the sentences imposed by the trial court, the appellants’ counsel submits that a lenient view may be taken. The learned Special Public Prosecutor disputes the same. He contends that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the highest sentences should have been awarded. However, the trial court has taken an extremely lenient view. Therefore, no interference is called for. 61 (b). Considering the entire material, the magnitude of the fraud and the manner in which the entire fraud has been committed, we are of the considered view that the sentence awarded by the trial court does not call for any interference. It is just and appropriate. Consequently, the appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
25. The judgment of conviction dated 15.4.2009, and order on Sentence dated 17.4.2009, passed in S.C.NO.105 of 2005 by the court of Special Judge, Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Court), Bengaluru are confirmed so far as, these appellants are concerned.
26. The appellants are directed to serve the remaining period of the sentence. The bail bonds are cancelled. Sureties are discharged. 62 II. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.414 OF2009 This appeal is by accused No.9 Sri Abdul Kareem Ladsab Telgi.
2. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW- 4, PW-18 and PW-32 to bring home the guilt of this appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that this appellant was the king pin of the infamous “Telgi Stamp Paper Scam”. The entire scam involved almost a sum of (Rs.25,000/- Crores). In the various cases that were initiated against this appellant and others, the appellant was the main accused, who was instrumental in the entire scam. 3.(a) PW-4 was an employee of M/s. Citizen Enterprises. He has stated that after completing his education, he was searching for a job. M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru, had called for the post of ‘Sales Executives”. He applied for the same. He received a 63 telegram from the above concern, asking him to attend the interview. Accused No.9 conducted the interview. He was appointed on a salary of Rs.2,000/- p.m. and Rs.20/- as daily allowance. He was asked to attend the office in due course. He joined the office after two or three days. He was given training, by Sri.Sudarshan, who was a senior in the firm. He was taken to banks, share brokers, companies etc., He was trained for one week. Accused No.6 and accused No.10 were managing the affairs of the said concern. He used to collect the orders for sale of stamps. He used to see accused No.6 in the office everyday. Accused No.9 was coming to the office once a week. After obtaining orders, the stamp papers were delivered by the staff of the concern, to the customers. Accused Nos.7, 10 and 6 were managing the affairs of the concern. Accused No.7 had given a copy of the stamp vending licence, which was standing in his name. Even though the accused was coming to the office, he was not speaking to him. Many persons were appointed in the Jayanagar Office of M/s. 64 Citizen Enterprises. In para 75 of his cross-examination, he has stated that it is true that he did not state before the Investigating Officer of CBI of the fact that accused No.7 gave him the xerox copy of stamp vending licence for the purpose of his file or record. It is true to state that he did not state before the Investigating Officer that accused No.7 was managing the affairs of the stamp vending concern. (b). PW-18 is a Fruit vendor at Khanapur. He has stated that accused No.9 was his neighbour. That while at Bombay, he applied for a job with Abdul Kareem Lal Telgi at Bombay. He worked there for one year. He knows Irfan Telgi, Azeem Telgi, Mallesh Dulanavar and Riyaz Mokashi who are from Khanapur. They were all working in the office of Abdul Kareem Telgi at Mumbai. Accused No.9 Telgi, is the owner of M/s. Metro Exports at Mumbai. They were dealing in the sale of stamps and stamp papers. Accused No.9 was running M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bangalore. That this witness came to the Bengaluru office from the 65 Bombay office. Accused No.9 started working at M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bangalore. He was packing the stamps in covers. He stayed in Hotel Shalimar along with Rahim Telgi-accused No.6, Sri.Mallesh, Shri. Ilyas and Sri. Ibrahim Hudli @ Sadiq Ibrahim Hudli-accused No.5. That he identifies accused No.7 Shri. Syed Mohiddin, who had a stamp-vending licence. The business was being run by accused No.7. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were working in M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bangalore. They had joined one month prior to accused No.9 joining M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bangalore. Accused No.9 was managing the above concern while he was at Mumbai, through his brother accused No.6, Sri Rahim Telgi. The cheques collected by them from the customers were given to Rahim Telgi-accused No.6. He states that he was building a house at Khanapur and as he required money, he asked accused No.9 to give him money. That as accused No.9 did not give him money, he left working in the concern of accused No.9. 66 (c). PW-32 is another person, who applied on the basis of a paper advertisement for the post of ‘Executive’ in M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Jayangara, Bangalore. He went to the office of M/s. Citizen Enterprises and found accused Nos.6 and 9 in the office. He filled the application for the post of Executive. He submitted his Bio-data. He was appointed. Accused No.9 was the Boss of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru. Accused Nos.5 and 6 always used to be in the office. Accused No.9 used to visit the office once a week. Branches were opened in the names of M/s.Citizen Enterprises at Brigade Garden, Brigade Road, Bengaluru. Rahim Telgi was incharge of that office also. He has narrated the manner in which the business was operated by accused Nos.6 and 9. That orders were procured and had to be delivered to various customers. Cheques that were received were being handed over to accused No.6. Accused No.7 used to be in the office. Xerox copy of the stamp licence was given to all the Marketing Executives of the concern. Accused No.7 was not talking to 67 this witness. After this witness came to know that the concern was dealing with sale of fake stamps, he met accused No.7 in his house. He came to know that accused no.7 would arrange sending people to Haj. He told accused No.7 that the concern is dealing with fake stamps and that he would file a complaint and see that the concerned persons were arrested. Accused No.7 told him that he is not involved in the matter and he does not know anything. He once again told him that he would file a complaint against accused No.9 and 6. Accused No.7 told him to do whatever he wants. He has further stated that accused No.7 or accused No.8 might have told accused No.9 with regard to the complaint filed by him against accused No.9. That accused No.7 had stated that he had a threat to his life. Accused No.7 told him that if he files a complaint before the police, he would support him. Accused No.7 told him that he had a threat from accused No.9 and because of that, he had suffered health problems. That he would indirectly support him, if the complaint was filed. 68 4. On considering the evidence and the material on record, the trial court was of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. We have considered the evidence at length. The witnesses have clearly narrated that this appellant Accused No.9 was the man, who was instrumental in running the entire business. He had an office at Mumbai. Thereafter, he opened an office in Bengaluru and subsequently various offices were opened in Bengaluru City. That he was running the business. He was instrumental in arranging for the customers and also for the production, preparation and distribution of stamp papers. The witnesses have stated that the stamp papers were received by courier from the Bombay to Bengaluru office from accused No.9 and thereafter the same were being sold to local customers. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they have clearly narrated the distinct role played, so far as this appellant is concerned. So far as this appellant is concerned, the evidence is clear and unshaken. The 69 prosecution witnesses have narrated the role of the appellant/accused No.9 in the stamp paper racket. The production, sale, distribution, receipt of money, acquisition of properties, opening of bank accounts have all been stated without any hesitation by the witnesses. None of the statements made by the witnesses have been seriously challenged in the cross-examination of the appellant/accused No.9. In view of the overwhelming evidence against this accused, we noticed that there is no real or serious challenge by the appellant. It would appear to be a token resistance.
5. The trial court on considering such evidence was of the view that since there is nothing to disbelieve the statement of the witnesses, so far as this appellant is concerned, accepted the same. The evidence with regard to the manufacture, sale, distribution of stamp papers and other material have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the well considered order of the trial court. The 70 trial court so far as this appellant is concerned, has relied on the exhaustive evidence led-in by the prosecution. There is no reason to disagree with the reasons assigned by the trial court.
6. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 15th April 2009 and the order of sentence dated 17.4.2009 passed by the Special Judge, 35th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge(Special Court), Bengaluru, in S.C.No.105 of 2005, so far as this appellant is concerned, is affirmed. III. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.360 OF2009 This appeal is by accused No.7, Sri.Syed Mohiyuddhin. 2.(a) The appellants counsel submits that it would not be necessary to consider the evidence of each one of the witnesses. So far as the present accused is concerned 71 the evidence that is relatable to him is that of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10, PW-18, PW-32 and PW-33. Therefore, he has addressed arguments based on the evidence of these witnesses. (b). PW-3 is the owner of a printing press situated at Bengaluru. He has stated in his evidence that he was examined by one Sri Bhadrinath, the Investigating Officer of STAMP IT, at that point of time. He was shown the photograph of Syed Mohiyuddhin, namely the accused/appellant in this case. He has stated it is the photograph of Munavar. Later on, he came to know that Syed Mohiuddin, namely the accused herein, had wrongly stated his name to be Munavar. However, the face is one and the same. In 1997, the appellant came to his printing press and asked him to print the word “Karnataka” in Kannada language on small stamps which he had brought to his press. He was told by accused No.7 that the stamps were brought from Maharashtra to Bengaluru and if the 72 word ‘Karnataka’ is printed, he would be saving 2% of the commission, which he was required to pay to Maharashtra. Accused No.7 would bring plastic pouches containing small stamps of 10 or 15 sheets for the purpose of printing. He used to pay Rs.100/- per pouch as printing charges. Accused No.7 also brought to his press typed/letters of the word ‘Karnataka” in Kannada. He was doing the said printing for four to five months. The accused was visiting his press once a fortnight, sometimes once a month. Accused No.7 introduced him to accused No.10. He can identify him. Accused No.10 was also coming to his press. (c). PW-4 was an employee of M/s. Citizen Enterprises. He has stated that after completing his education, he was searching for a job. M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru, had called for the post of ‘Sales Executives”. He applied for the same. He received a telegram from the above concern, asking him to attend the interview. Accused No.9 conducted the interview. He was 73 appointed on a salary of Rs.2,000/- p.m. and Rs.20/- as daily allowance. He was asked to attend the office in due course. He joined the office after two or three days. He was given training by one Sri.Sudarshan, who was a senior in the firm. He was taken to banks, share brokers, companies etc., He was trained for one week. Accused No.6 and accused No.10 were managing the affairs of the said concern. He used to collect the orders for sale of stamps. He used to see accused No.6 in the office everyday. Accused No.9 was coming to the office once in a week. After obtaining the orders, the stamp papers were delivered by the staff of the concern, to the customers. Accused Nos.7, 10 and 6 were managing the affairs of stamp vending concern. Accused No.7 had given the copy of the stamp vending licence, which was standing in his name. Even though the accused was coming to the office, he was not speaking to him. Many persons were appointed in the Jayanagar Office of M/s. Citizen Enterprises. In para 74 75 of his cross-examination, he has stated that it is true that he did not state before the Investigating Officer of CBI of the fact that accused No.7 gave him the xerox copy of stamp vending licence for the purpose of his file or record. It is true to state that he did not state before the Investigating Officer that accused No.7 was managing the affairs of the stamp vending concern. (d). PW-5, the Manager of The Indian Bank, Bengaluru, states that M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru sold fake stamps vide MOs.66 to 70 for a consideration of Rs.1,30,625/- out of which, stamps worth Rs.1,27,480/- were fake. The bank also placed an order in terms of Ex- P11 to Ex-P14 for supply of Special Adhesive stamps and accordingly M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru supplied the same, for which, payments were made through cheques vide Ex-P16 to Ex-P18 in favour of M/s. Citizen Enterprises. The deposit of the cheques in terms of Ex-P16 to Ex-P18 have been admitted in the statement of accused 75 No.7 under Section-313 of Cr.P.C. MOs 66 to 70 on being forwarded to the India Security Press, Nasik were found to be fake as per report Exhibit-P119 in the evidence of PW- 20 Shashikanth Barde, who was the Works Manager of India Security Press, Nasik. That on 06.09.1996, stamps worth Rs.29,886/- were sold to M/s.Fanuc India Private Limited, Bengaluru, as per invoice No.1488 knowing that the stamps were counterfeit. Therefore, all these evidences would clearly indicate that fake stamps were being sold and transacted by accused No.7. The stamps were sold to various persons. All of them have deposed against accused No.7. The report of the India Security Press, Nasik also indicates that most of the stamps sent to them were fake. (e). The evidence of PW-10, who is the owner of the property in question, narrates that the property was leased in favour of accused No.7. It was in that property, accused No.7 was running his business. It was rented to M/s. Citizen Enterprises for Rs.9,750/- p.m. with an 76 advance of Rs.1,17,000/-. The rent agreement was executed in terms of Ex-P23. (f). PW-18 is a Fruit vendor at Khanapur. He has stated that accused No.9 was his neighbour. That while at Bombay, he applied for a job with Abdul Kareem Lal Telgi at Bombay. He worked there for one year. He knows Irfan Telgi, Azeem Telgi, Mallesh Dulanavar and Riyaz Mokashi who are from Khanapur. They were all working in the office of Abdul Kareem Telgi at Mumbai. Accused No.9 Telgi, is the owner of M/s. Metro Exports at Mumbai. They were dealing in the sale of stamps and stamp papers. Accused No.9 was running M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bengaluru. That this witness came to the Bengaluru office from the Bombay office. Accused No.9 started working at M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bengaluru. He was packing the stamps in covers. He stayed in Hotel Shalimar along with Rahim Telgi-accused No.6,Sri. Mallesh, Shri. Ilyas and Sri. Ibrahim Hudli @ Sadiq Ibrahim Hudli - accused No.5. That 77 he identified accused No.7 Shri. Syed Mohiddin, who had a stamp-vending licence. The business was being run by accused No.7. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were working in M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bangalore. They had joined one month prior to accused No.9 joining M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Bangalore. Accused No.9 was managing the above concern while he was at Mumbai, through his brother accused No.6 Sri Rahim Telgi. The cheques collected by them from the customers were given to Rahim Telgi-accused No.6. He states that he was building a house at Khanapur and as he required money, he asked accused No.9 to give money. That as accused No.9 did not give him money, he left working in the concern of accused No.9. (g). PW-32 is also a person, who applied on the basis of a paper advertisement for the post of ‘Executive’ in M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Jayangara, Bangalore. He went to the office M/s. Citizen Enterprises and found accused Nos.6 and 9 in the office. He filled the application for the post of 78 Executive. He submitted his Bio-data. He was appointed. Accused No.9 was the Boss of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Bengaluru. Accused Nos.5 and 6 always used to be in the office. Accused No.9 used to visit the office once a week. Branches were open in the names of M/s. Citizen Enterprises at Brigade Garden, Brigade Road, Bengaluru. Rahim Telgi was incharge of that office also. He has narrated the manner in which the business was operated by accused Nos.6 and 9. That orders were procured and had to be delivered to various customers. Cheques that were received were being handed over to accused No.6. Accused No.7 used to be in the office. Xerox copy of the stamp licence was given to all the Marketing Executives of the concern. Accused No.7 was not talking to with this witness. After this witness came to know that the concern was dealing with sale of fake stamps, he met accused No.7 in his house. He came to know that accused no.7 would arrange sending people to Haj. He told accused No.7 that 79 the concern is dealing with fake stamps and that he would file a complaint and see that the concerned persons were arrested. Accused No.7 told him that he is not involved in the matter and he does not know anything. He once again told that he would file a complaint against accused No.9 and 6. Accused No.7 told him to do whatever he wants. He has further stated that accused No.7 or accused No.8 might have told accused No.9 with regard to the complaint filed by him against accused No.9. That accused No.7 had stated that he had a threat to his life. Accused No.7 told him that if he files a complaint before the police, he would support him. Accused No.7 told him that he had a threat from accused No.9 and because of that, he had suffered health problems. That he would indirectly support him if the complaint was filed. (h). PW-33 is the Police Inspector of CBI, who conducted the entire investigation. He recorded the evidence of the witnesses. Accused No.7 was arrested by 80 this witness and he seized the licence standing in the name of accused No.7. The evidence would clearly indicate that the stamp vending licence stood in the name of this accused. That, he was doing the business. That there were various persons working in M/s. Citizen Enterprises. The lease rent agreement was in the name of accused No.7, which is marked as Ex-P.23. The premises was in his name. The licence was in his name. The business was being done in his name. Banks accounts were also standing in his name. On examining the licence, the same was in his personal name and for the purpose of selling only the specific variety of stamps. However, stamps that were being sold were of all kinds. The letter offering sale of all types of stamps from prospective customers vide Exihibit-P10, indicates that the stamps were being offered for sale at no extra cost. Therefore, there is clear evidence to show that all these stamps were being sold by accused No.7 beyond his licence. They were stamps that 81 were manufactured. The stamps that were sent to India Security Press at Nasik and the report submitted would indicate that most stamps were counterfeit and only some were genuine. The evidence of PW-3 would indicate that this accused went to him in order to print. Accused No.7 brought him small stamps and asked him to print the word ‘Karnataka” on the stamps. The printing of the word on the stamps or otherwise were done individually. It was being illegally printed by PW-3 at the behest of accused No.7. The stamps seized in 308 challans in Ex-P211 and Ex-212 were not supported by any licence. Even though the witness was cross-examined at length, nothing worthwhile has been extracted in the cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.
3. The contention of this appellant is that the moment he suspected foul play, he left the job. He did not pursue it. It is his case that he supported the prosecution for the said offences. However, the material on record 82 would indicate otherwise. It is his case that he came to know that accused Nos.6 and 9 were dealing in fake stamps sometime in December 1996. The licence expired in March 1997. He got it extended for a further period upto March 1998. Even after he made the statement of foul play, in December 1996 he renewed the licence upto March 1998. If his statement was true and is to be accepted, then there was no reason to renew the licence. He should not have got it renewed. Therefore, his statement of foul play and leaving the job cannot be accepted. Further, the premises in which the business was being run, continued to stand in his name. He did not shut down the operations. The operations in selling fake stamps continued even after the so-called statement made by this accused in December 1996. Therefore, the plea that he left the business immediately on coming to know of the same, runs contrary to the evidence on record. He has extended his licence even after he came to know of the fraud. He has continued in the premises enabling the illegal acts 83 being committed even after he came to know of the fraud. Therefore, the contention that he has supported the prosecution after he came to know of the fraud runs contrary to the evidence on record. There is substantial evidence to indicate that the business was being run in connivance with accused No.6 as well as accused No.9. The evidence of the witnesses establish the same. The evidence is sufficient so far as this accused is concerned, in order to bring home the charge of the prosecution, that the accused was dealing in fake and counterfeit stamps.
4. On considering the evidence and the material on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that accused No.7 is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The reasons assigned by the trial court are just and proper. We do not find any error or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. The findings and 84 reasons assigned by the trial court being just and proper, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the same.
5. On sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged 72 years and hence, a lenient view may be taken. The same is opposed by the learned Spl.PP.
6. On hearing learned counsels, we find that the magnitude of the crime is almost to the extent of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Crores. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that this appellant/accused No.7 was involved in the offence charged against him. Therefore, we find no reason to take a lenient view. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed so far as this appellant is concerned. The appellant shall serve out the remaining part of his sentence. It is needless to state that the appellant/accused is entitled for set off for the period of custody undergone by him in this case. 85 IV. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.457 OF2009 This appeal is by accused No.8, Sri T.G.Sangram Singh. He was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 & 221 of IPC read with section 120(B) of IPC. He was acquitted of the offences charged under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of IPC. This appeal is filed by him questioning the order of conviction. So far as the acquittal is concerned, the CBI have not filed any appeal. Therefore, the material on record would be considered only so far as the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 and 221 of IPC read with section 120(B) of IPC. 2.(a) The facts pertaining to this appellant are peculiar. Therefore, we would like to narrate as to how this appellant was treated as an accused. The appellant was the Investigating Officer pertaining to the charges 86 framed against some of the other accused. He conducted the investigation and a charge sheet was filed. He was being examined as PW-1 in C.C.No.20656 of 1997. Subsequently, in pursuance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in writ petition No.522 of 2003 dated 15-3-2004 and the subsequent Government of India Notification dated 23-3-2004 the further investigation of Crime No.109 of 1997 of the City Market Police Station was taken over by the CBI. The further investigation was conducted by the CBI. In the course of the said investigation, accused Nos.7 to 12 were added on as accused. That is how the earlier Investigating Officer, came to be arrayed as accused No.8. (b). In short, the allegation of the prosecution against him, is that he aided and assisted the other accused and has wrongly charged them for a lesser offence namely, Section 473 read with 34 of IPC. That he has deliberately not conducted the investigation in an appropriate manner. That he has not investigated the 87 relevant accused. Therefore, he has committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On trial, he has been acquitted of the offences under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the conviction with which we are concerned is only for Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 & 221 of IPC read with section 120(B) of IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 9, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 31 & 33. The appellant relied on the evidence of DW-1. 3.(a) PW-1 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at that point of time. He has stated that on 10-4- 1997, at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant accused No.8 called him in order to go to Hotel Shalimar. As per his instructions they went to Hotel Shalimar. That accused No.8 went inside the room Nos.101 and 104. The witness and others were asked to stand outside. The doors of room Nos.101 and 104 were opened by the inmates. Accused Nos.8 and 12 and Sri Vali Basha went inside the above two 88 rooms. The witness and Sri Shivkumar were standing outside the above two rooms. It was about 3.00 or 4.00 p.m., at that time. After about one or one and a half hours, accused Nos.8, 12 and Sri Vali Basha brought 5 or 6 persons along with bags from the said rooms. Accused No.8 directed the witness to come to the police station by walk. Accused No.8 took those 5 or 6 persons in the police jeep. The witness wrote down the Mahazar in terms of Ex.P-1. The same was under the dictation of accused No.8. The names of the accused persons as shown by accused No.8 was written by him, as per the instructions of accused No.8. The persons who were apprehended in Shalimar Hotel were kept in the police lock up. After 8 to 10 days, accused No.8 gave him 5 or 6 packets containing the stamps and directed him to go to Nasik along with Sri Venkatappa, police constable. Accordingly the witness and Sri Venkatappa, went to the India Security Press, Nasik. They met the officials and handed over the packets. The officials opened the same and found the 89 stamps of different denominations in the form of sheets and loose stamps. In all the 6 packets, there were 1,44,790 stamps. They stated that an examination fee of Rs.100/- per single stamp or per strip sheet block of stamps is chargeable and the same is payable in advance by demand draft favouring the General Manager, India Security Press. Therefore, they had to deposit a sum of Rs.14,01,900/- as total examination fee for all the 1,44,790 stamps. The witness had not carried that much of money. He contacted accused No.8 who told him to once again contact the officials of the Press. As per the instructions of accused No.8 he again contacted the officials. The Officials told him that it is possible that one sample stamp out of a particular denomination could be given for the purpose of examination. Thereafter, they returned to Bengaluru with the above said packets of stamps. The packets were returned to accused No.8. Thereafter, accused No.8 gave one packet containing samples to the witness to be carried to Nasik. The witness 90 and Sri Venkatappa again went to Nasik. The stamps were given to the officials of the India Security Press and thereafter they returned to Bengaluru. At this stage, an objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that some portion of the statement made by this witness before the court under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been denied. Hence, this witness was treated as hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the CBI. (b). In para-27 of the cross-examination he admits that along with 5 accused persons one Rahim Lal Telgi, namely, accused No.6 was also brought from Shalimar Hotel to the police station. That Rahim Lal Telgi, was made to sit outside the lockup of the police station. He admits to the fact that he came to know that during night hours, some 3 or 4 persons came to the police station and met accused No.8, Sri Vali Basha, accused No.12 and Head Constable Sri.Srinivas who conspired together with the person who came to the police station who gave money and took Rahim Lal Telgi. This is the statement that he 91 has made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate also. He admits that he filed the charge sheet in Crime No.109 of 1997, in terms of the instructions and directions of Accused No.8. It is in his own handwriting. Accused No.8 has signed the charge sheet. One Rahim Baig was shown as absconding person. He admits to the fact that as per the instructions of accused No.8, he wrote the words “Rahim Baig” as the person absconding in place of the words “Rahim Lal Telgi”. He has further stated that the sealed covers of the security press were intact. That the same was delivered to accused No.8. One letter given by the India Security Press addressed to accused No.8 has been marked as Ex.P-8. The admit pass issued to admit the witness was also marked as Ex.P-9. He admits that the contents of the statements made by him before the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., are true and correct. He admits to the fact that the Mahazar at Ex.P-1 makes a mention of 5 persons who were apprehended by accused No.8 from Hotel Shalimar. 92 4. PW-2 was the Police Constable in the City Market police station. He accompanied PW-1 and accused No.8 to Hotel Shalimar. He has reiterated the evidence as narrated by PW-1 except by clarifying that there were 5 persons in Room No.104 and one person in Room No.101.
5. PW-9 is the Manager of Hotel Shalimar, Bengaluru. He has stated in para-7 of his evidence that room No.101 and 104 were taken on rent by Sri Rahim Bhai showing the address as Mint Road, Fort,Bombay on 1-4-1997. The Register was marked as Ex.P-21. It is for the period from 1-4-1997 to 18-7-1997. That in terms of the relevant entry which is at Ex.P-21(a), it would indicate that 6 persons had stayed in the above two rooms during the period in question. That Room Nos. 101 and 104 were vacated by the lodgers on 11-4-1997 and 15-4-1997 respectively as per Ex.P-21(a). The same is mentioned in column No.14 of Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-21(a). In the cross- examination at para-40 he has stated that Rahim Bhai checked in room Nos.101 and 104 on 1-4-1997. That 93 there is no entry against the date 10-4-1997 to the effect that Sri.Rahim Bhai and five others were in the above two rooms.
6. PW-20 was serving as Assistant Works Manager in the Security Press at Nasik. He retired in the year 2005. He has stated that he assisted the Investigation Officer in making the inventory of the stamps which were collected by the Investigating Officer in the case. His superior had directed him and his colleague PW- 22, to go the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation and assist the Investigation Officer. The inventory was prepared which bears his signature and marked as Ex.P24 and his signature at Ex.P24(c). He assisted the Investigating Officer in distinguishing the stamps of the different denomination. On 13.9.2004, the officer received various documents and stamps from SP, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru and he took the matter for examination and gave his report on 17.9.2004. The covering letter is marked as Ex.P119 and his signature as Exhibit-P119(b-1). 94 After examination of the stamps, the same were put in separate covers and sealed. They were sent to the office of the CBI. He states that Sl.No.1-Q-12208 to 115318 referred by him at Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.119(b) are sheets of Insurance Stamps. Fourteen sheets of Insurance Stamps of face value of Rs.500/- bearing Q-12208 to 12213, 115312 to 115318 are marked as M.O.No.80. The two sheets are marked as M.O.81 bearing No.Q-12204 and 12206 and sheets bearing Q-12205 and 12207 are marked as M.O.81(a). They are forged. He identifies special adhesive stamps of face value of Rs.100/- bearing Q-12204. He identifies foreign bill stamp sheets of Rs.100/- bearing Q-11826 to 11857. The above stamps are forged. The said stamps are marked as M.O.No.83. He identifies the special adhesive stamp sheets of Rs.50/- bearing Q-11024, 11025, 11028, 11029, 11035, 11039, 11043, 11049, 11050, 11066, 11076, 11085, 11091, 11101, 11104, 11122, 11123, 11143, 11146 and 11159 to 11731. The said stamps are forged. The same are 95 marked as M.O.No.84. He identifies special adhesive stamps of face value of Rs.20/- bearing Q-11475 to 11530 and Q-11074. Out of the above stamps, sheets of stamps bearing Q-11475 to 11530 are forged. The said sheets of stamps are marked as M.O.No.85. Sheet of stamp paper containing Q-11074 are genuine. The same is marked as M.O.No.85(a). He identifies the share transfer stamps of face value of Rs.10/- bearing Q-11302, 11305 and 29 other sheets. All the stamps in the said cover are genuine. The stamps are marked as M.O.No.86. He identifies the stamps at Sl.No.8 of my report at Ex.P119(b). The same are marked as M.O.No.87. The said stamps are genuine. He identifies Sl.No.9 of Ex.P.119(b). The said stamps are marked as M.O.No.88. The said stamps are genuine. He identifies Sl.No.10 of Ex.P.119(b). The said stamps are marked as M.O.No.89. The said stamps are genuine. He identifies Sl.No.11 of Ex.P.119(b). The said stamps are genuine. The same is marked as M.O.No.90. The said stamps are genuine. He identifies stamps at Sl.No.12 to 17 96 of Ex.P.119(b) which are enclosed in one common cover bearing M.O.Nos.67 to 70 of stamps at Q-15000 to Q- 15020. He identifies stamps at M.O.No.66 to 70. He identifies Q-15000 at M.O.No.66. The stamps are genuine. He identifies Q-15001 at M.O.No.67. Stamp of face value of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/- on M.O.No.67 are forged. Stamps of Rs.20/- and Rs.5/- on M.O.No.67 are genuine. He identifies M.O.No.68 i.e., Q-15002, 15003, 15004(a) and (b) to 15010. Q-15002, 15003 and 15004. All stamps appearing on M.O.No.68 are forged. He identifies M.O.No.69, which contains Q-15005 to Q-15008 (a) and (b). The said stamps on M.O.No.69 are forged. He identifies M.O.No.70 containing Q-15009 and 15010. The stamps on the above M.O.No.70 are forged. Stamps bearing Q-15011 to 15020 are not forthcoming from the cover marked as M.O.No.60 to 70. He examined the stamps at Sl.No.15011 to Q-15020. The said stamps are genuine. He identifies his report at Ex.P.119(b). The contents of the same are true and correct. After 97 examining M.O.No.80, 81, 81(a), 82 to 85, 85(a), 86 to 90 and 66 to 70, he signed on all the sheets of stamp papers and of single loose stamps sent to me for examination. The Non-judicial stamps of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- , Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- at Sl.No.17 of Ex.P.119 (b) are not forthcoming from the cover. He examined the said stamps at Sl.No.17 of Ex.P.119(b) and gave opinion to the effect that the said stamps are genuine. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement.
7. PW-21 was working as PSI- Law and order in the City Market of Police Station from 20.5.2002 to 20.5.2006. He has stated that his superior by name Sri C.Siddaramaiah, Police Inspector of Market Police Station directed him to file an application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.109 of 1997 before 9th ACMM Bengaluru. Accordingly, he had filed an application before the court on 29.5.2002. The document is marked as Ex.C1 and his signature as Exhibit-C1(a). Nothing worthwhile is 98 elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement.
8. PW-22, was working as Supervisor in India Security Press, Nasik road since 1996. That on 9.6.2004 he had come to Bengaluru with Sri Shashikanth Barde, and went to the office of CBI. He was shown some sealed packets containing stamps. He identified the seals of his office on the envelopes. The envelopes was opened before him. He prepared the inventory before the office of the CBI. Exhibit-P24 which bears his signature has Ex.P24(c) . The work of inventory continued on 11.6.2004, 14.06.2004 and 15.6.20004. Exhibit-P24 to P28 bears his signatures. He signed at the bottom of the pages. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement.
9. PW-24 worked as Under Secretary, Home Department-Services, Bengaluru from May 2005 till 2007. He worked as a Under Secretary Crimes in the Post of Inspector of Police Department which comes under Home 99 Department. He had signed the sanction order to prosecute accused No.8 who was holding the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police as on the date of the issuance of sanction order in the name of Governor of Karnataka. He has signed on all the sheets. The sanction order to prosecute A-8 is marked as Ex.P.121. He identifies his signature on the last page of Ex.P.121. The same is marked as Ex.P.121(a). The CBI sought for permission to prosecute A-8. The CBI had sent to him the copies of FIR. Statements of witnesses for the prosecution recorded by investigating agencies and other records for the purpose of grant of sanction. He went through the records submitted by the CBI and submitted the report to his Higher Officer, namely, the Deputy Secretary. Thereafter, the file was processed by the Deputy Secretary and was sent to the Principal Secretary of Home Department. Thereafter, the file was processed by the Prinicipal Secretary and was sent to the Home Minister. As on the date of grant of sanction the Home Minister was 100 Shri Dharam Singh. Shri Dharam Singh was the Chief Minister and was holding the portfolio of Home Department also. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his statement.
10. PW-27 was the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city. He has stated that Chickpet Sub- Division comes within the jurisdiction of Kalasipalyam police station. That if the SHO of a police station registers a case pertaining to some other police station, the SHO should transfer the records to the jurisdictional police station for the purposes of investigation. The same must be intimated to the jurisdictional police station. That accused No.8 did not submit the transfer note, to transfer the case from City Market police station to Kalasipalyam police station. That he did not receive any note from accused No.8 to continue the investigation. In para – 6 of the cross-examination, he has stated that the Investigating Officer did not collect the copy of the area map of the Chickpet Sub-Division from him. That the 101 normal practice is that the Investigating Officer would place the file before the Assistant Director of Prosecution along with the final charge-sheet. Once the investigation is over, it is the Assistant Director, prosecution who scrutinizes the records and the charge-sheet and thereafter the Investigating Officer would place the charge-sheet before the concerned Court through the Public Prosecutor. That he did not inform in writing asking accused No.8 not to investigate the matter pertaining to Hotel Shalimar.
11. PW-31 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, BESCOM, Bengaluru. He took up further investigation on 13-10-2003 from Shri E.A.Baig, Police Inspector of CCB, Bengaluru. He recorded the statement of PW-9. On 16-1-2004, he went to Shalimar Hotel along with PSI, Shri Muralidhar Rao and seized two arrival and departure Registers of the lodge at Exs.P-21 and P-22 under the Mahazar Ex.P-195. 102 12. PW-33 was the police Inspector in CBI, ACB, Bengaluru. In terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in writ petition (Civil) No.522 of 2003 dated 15-3-2004, the CBI took up further investigation. He has stated that Crime No.109 of 1997 of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru was registered by the CBI under Sections 255, 256, 471, 472, 468 and 420 of IPC on 23-3-2004. On 26-6-2004, he sought permission of the Court, for return of rubber seals, articles etc., as well as Material Objects 1 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39, 40, 41 to 48, 49 to 62, 63 to 65. He recorded the statement of PW-11 on 29-4-2004. He deputed the officials of the India Security Press to Bengaluru, to identify the contents of the packets. Since M.Os contained the seal of the India Security Press, he requested the officials to come over to Bengaluru to help and identify the contents of the packets. Accordingly, PWs.20 & 22 came to Bengaluru. He recorded the statements of PWs.4,5,6,7,8 & 27. The officials of the India Security press identified the packets. Since PWs.20 & 103 22 confirmed that the stamps were not subjected to opinion, he took samples of the stamps from each of the packets by opening the packets in the presence of PWs.12, CW-23 and 24. The stamps were put in separate covers and the covers were closed and sealed. They were marked as M.Os 80 to 90. They were sent to the India Security Press, Nasik for examination as per the letter at Ex.P-35. The cover marked as M.Os 70 to 79 were sent to the Director, Government Printing Press, Bengaluru, for examination and report, as per the letter Ex.P.34. On 17-9-2004 information was received from the India Security Press vide letter Ex.P-119. On 13-9-2004, the information from the Government Printing Press was received vide Ex.P-35. The records were sent to the Government of Karnataka seeking permission to prosecute accused No.8. Sanction order under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. at Ex.P-121 was received from the Government of Karnataka against accused No.8. He also forwarded the reports and documents to prosecute accused No.12 under 104 Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was subsequently received in terms of Ex.P-120. On 4-12-2004 he filed the first charge sheet against accused Nos.7 & 8 before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru under Sections 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 212, 217, 218 and 221 of IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused No.8 was arrested on 7-7-2004. Since he had collected some more material, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 31-12-2005 against accused Nos. 1 to 5 and against accused Nos. 9 to 12. He collected Exhibits-P-203 to 205, namely, cash memos of M/s.Citizen Enterprises.
13. Based on these evidences the trial Court was of the view that the accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 220 and 221 of the IPC. It was of the view that the accused had filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for a lesser offence when they were liable to be charge sheeted for 105 various other offences also. That this act was done by him in order to help these accused. That he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in him. He could not have investigated the case beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, he was charged for the offences as aforesaid. As stated hereinabove, the accused has been acquitted of the offences under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, we have not referred to the evidence touching upon the said Sections. We are only concerned with the offences under Sections 212, 217,218,201 and 221 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 14.(a) The first contention of the prosecution is that the accused did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. That Hotel Shalimar came within the jurisdiction of the City Market police station. Therefore, even though he conducted the raid, he should have immediately transferred the case onto the Kalasipalyam police station. However, the material on record would indicate that the charge sheet was submitted to his higher 106 officers before it was filed. It was initially submitted to the Assistant Director of Prosecutions. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-27 are therefore relevant to consider the question of jurisdiction. (b). PW-27 as narrated herein was the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In para-6 of the cross-examination he has stated that the Investigating Officer did not collect the copy of the area map of Chickpet Sub-Division from him. He further states that the Investigation Officer of the case, would place the file before the Assistant Director of Prosecutions along with the final charge sheet once the investigation is over. The Assistant Director of Prosecutions scrutinizes the records and the charge sheet and thereafter the Investigating Officer of the case would place the charge sheet before the concerned Court through the Public Prosecutor. (c). PW-1 in his cross-examination at para-62 has stated that he is the one who wrote the charge sheet at Ex.P-6. This is the charge sheet filed by accused No.8 107 before the Court. It is not the charge sheet filed in the instant case while conducting the trial. Therefore, the same was marked as Exhibit P-6. The witness has stated that the charge sheet was sent to the Assistant Director of Prosecution. It was scrutinized by him. After scrutiny, the same was submitted to the concerned Court through the APP. In the crime report submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police for every month, there would be a mention of the filing of the charge sheets filed by the concerned Investigating Officers before the concerned Court. But the copy of the charge sheet would not be sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. Ex.P-7, PF Form, was received by the concerned Magistrate on 11-4-1997. It is true that Ex.P-7 makes a mention of Rs.26,000/- in cash being seized by the Investigating Officer. Ex.P-1 Panchanama also makes a mention of the seizure of cash of Rs.26,000/-. (d). The material on record would therefore indicate, that there was no deliberate action on the part of 108 accused No.8 to assume jurisdiction that he did not have. PW-27 who was the Assistant Commissioner of Police has stated in the cross-examination that there was no clarification as to which jurisdiction Hotel Shalimar came under. That the area map of the Chickpet Sub-Division was not collected by the concerned accused No.8. Therefore, there was no clarity as to which police station, the said Hotel came under. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that accused No.8 bonafide proceeded with the investigation with the right earnestness. After completing the investigation, the same was submitted to the Assistant Director of Prosecutions who was expected to find out whether the charge sheet is in order including the question of jurisdiction. However, there was no error of jurisdiction as noticed by the Assistant Director of Prosecutions. He has accepted the investigation. So far as the power of the Investigating Officer is concerned, if at all there was any error in the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation, the Assistant Director of 109 Prosecutions would have stated so. Infact one of the reasons, why the charge sheet is submitted to the Assistant Director of Prosecutions is to find out whether the technicalities and the requirements of law have been complied with. The trial court while considering the said issue at para-52 of the Judgment was of the view that the evidence of PW-27 is not sufficient to prove that Hotel Shalimar comes within the jurisdiction of Kalasipalyam police station and not within the jurisdiction of City Market police station. Therefore, the trial court itself was in doubt with regard to the jurisdiction of the concerned officer. Under these circumstances, especially when the ADP has certified that the charge sheet has met the requirements of law, we are of the view that such a ground would not be available to the prosecution. Therefore, the allegation of lack of territorial jurisdiction is not acceptable. 15.(a) The second contention of the prosecution is that accused No.8 committed acts of omission and commission in order to help accused No.6 to get away 110 from the clutches of law. That the FIR was registered only against 5 persons. That the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 9 would indicate that 6 persons were arrested in Hotel Shalimar. They were all taken from Hotel Shalimar to the police station. Thereafter, the case of the CBI is that there was a conspiracy between accused Nos. 8, 12 and Vali Basha as a result of which accused No.6 was let off. (b). The allegation of the CBI on this issue is ill- founded. It is a fact that the FIR was lodged against accused Nos. 1 to 5. Thereafter, accused No.8 took up further investigation of the case. In the course of the investigation, various material were unearthed, which involved accused No.6. Therefore, when he filed the charge sheet in terms of Ex.P-6, accused No.6 was arrayed as an accused. If the contention of the CBI were to be accepted, there was no reason for accused No.8 to charge sheet accused No.6 also. He could very well have avoided him, especially when his name was not shown in the FIR. The charge-sheet that has been filed by accused No.8 is as 111 a consequence to the investigation made by him. Therefore, the theory of conspiracy as set out by the prosecution runs contrary to the material on record. 16.(a) The next contention is that, even though there was substantial material against the accused, they have been charge sheeted only for the offence under Section 473 of the Indian Penal Code. That based on the investigation, the accused were liable to be charged for various other offences which accused No.8 deliberately did not file against them. (b). Such a contention runs contrary to the evidence of PW-21 and the evidence of the officers of the India Security Press namely, PWs-20 and 22. Ex.P-3 is the letter written by accused No.8 to the Officers at the India Security Press, Nasik. Ex.P-3 relates to the earlier communication dated 19-5-1997 issued by the Security Press to the Investigating Officer. Ex.P-8 is dated 19-5-1997. A reading of the letter would indicate that a sum of Rs.14,01,900/- had to be deposited in order to 112 examine the stamps as sent to them. Therefore, the entire bulk of the stamps namely, about 1,44,790 stamps in 6 packets were all sent to the Security Press at Nasik. Thereafter, a reading of the letter in terms of Ex.P-3 would indicate that one stamp from each of the sheets may be given for purposes of verification which in effect would reduce the amount to be paid to the India Security Press. Whether the stamps were found to be genuine or otherwise is a secondary question. The charge by the CBI is that all the stamps were not sent to the security press. The same stands negated by Exs.P-8 and P-3. Ex.P-8 is marked in the evidence of PW-1. They have very clearly stated that all the stamps that were seized were sent to Security Press at Nasik to be verified. If the contention of the prosecution were to be accepted, there was absolutely no necessity for the accused to send the entire 6 packets in all about 1,44,790 stamps to the Security Press. If there was a theory of conspiracy, then only some of these stamps would be sent. Furthermore, the officials of the 113 Security Press have themselves intimated to accused No.8, to send one stamp from each sheet to them, for purposes of verification, since the same would reduce the amount to be paid. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any conspiracy hatched by accused No.8 in order to defend the accused or to charge them for a lesser offence. Therefore, this contention of the prosecution, stands negated by the evidence of PWs-1 and 27 in terms of Ex.P-8 & P-3. (c). Furthermore, after the individual stamps were given to the Security Press they submitted a report in terms of Ex.P-2, dated 22-1-2007 which is marked in the evidence of PW-1. The said report would indicate that all the stamps sent to them are genuine stamps. The stamps that were sent by accused No.8 to the Security Press, have been sent to them at the specific request of the Security Press Officials themselves. It is not that the accused identified the stamps and thereafter sent it to the Security Press. Therefore, the question of he not implicating the remaining accused, therefore would not arise for 114 consideration. It is only thereafter by paying the full amount, by the CBI, all the stamps were sent to the Security Press at Nasik. Thereafter the report was obtained on 17-9-2004. It is on receipt of this report that in the charge sheet filed by the CBI, the other accused were added. It is also relevant to notice here that accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 & 10 were acquitted for the offence under Sections 465, 467 and 471. Accused No.11 and accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 were acquitted for the offence under Section 212, 217, 201, 221 and also under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, when the other accused were added on by the prosecution subsequent to Ex.P-6, no charge sheet would be sustainable against accused No.8. If at all there was any charge accused No.8, in the given circumstances of the case, it would probably attract Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the appellant accused No.8, has been acquitted of the said offences. Since the CBI has not filed any appeal against 115 him for the said offences, the question of looking into the material for the said offences would not arise for consideration.
17. There is no evidence placed on record by the CBI, to show that the accused inserted genuine stamps and sent them to the India Security Press. It is only an allegation that has remained as such without any evidence. There is also no evidence to show that some of the stamps were inserted by removing counterfeit stamps by replacing them with genuine stamps. Only because, Accused No.8 did not mention the details of the stamps seized, cannot be sufficient, to hold any criminal conspiracy or intention against him.
18. DW-1 has been examined on behalf of accused No.8. He was a vegetable Merchant. He was one of witnesses to Ex.P-1. DW-1 supports the case of the accused No.8. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the 116 cross-examination by the CBI on the genuineness of the evidence of DW-1.
19. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial court was at a tangent in convicting accused No.8. It has wrongly appreciated the material on record. There is no case made out against accused No.8 for the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 & 221 of IPC. The trial court in our considered view, committed a perversity in misreading the material evidence on record, in convicting Accused No.8 for the offences punishable under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 & 221 of IPC read with Section 120(B) of IPC.
20. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal requires to be allowed by acquitting the appellant/accused No.8 of the charges under Sections 212, 217, 218, 201 & 221 of IPC read with section 120(B) of IPC. 117 21. In view of the foregoing reasons with reference to the aforesaid appeals, the appeals are disposed off as follows:- a). Criminal Appeal Nos.414 of 2009, 660 of 2009, 360 of 2009, 338 of 2011 & 510 of 2011 are dismissed. The Judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2009 and sentence dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Special Judge, 35th Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Court), Court Complex, Bengaluru in S.C.NO:
105. of 2005, so far as these appellants/accused are concerned, are confirmed. All the pending I.As stand rejected, so far as Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2009 is concerned. b). Criminal Appeal No.457 of 2009 filed by appellant/accused No.8 is allowed. The Judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2009 and sentence dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Special Judge, 35th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Court), Bengaluru, 118 is set aside so far as appellant/accused No.8 is concerned. He is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged. The fine amount said to have been deposited by the appellant/accused No.8 before the trial Court is directed to be released in his favour. SD/- SD/- JUDGE JUDGE JJ/DH/MN/RSK