Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 255 (DEL)

ABDUL REHAN v. STATE OF DELHI

2004-04-06

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 1995, whereby the petitioner ha9s been convicted for an offence under Section 103 Delhi Police Act. ( 2 ) THE allegations of the prosecution are that the accused Abdul Rehani on 14th October, 1993 at 8. 50 pm at plat form number was found in possession of an attachie case containing a sum of Rs. 10,89,000/- suspected to be the stolen property. The accused has not been able to give any satisfactory account of possessing the same. Notice under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act has been served on the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was the case of the accused that he had received this money from 45 passengers for the purposes of arranging the passage from Delhi to Jeddah and from Jeddah to Delhi. The name and Passport Nos. of the passengers are given below:- ( 3 ) DURING the trial the defence has examined 47 witnesses out of which 45 witnesses have deposed to the effect that they had given money to the petitioner to arrange for their travel from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi. Two other witnesses, CW-1, Mr. Ramesh Siddiqui, Manager of Gulf Travel Agency and CW-2 Mr. Tariq Usmani, Head Constable Ramesh Pal Singh were also examined. CW-1 has deposed to the effect that the aforesaid money had been given to the petitioner as refund as the same was deposited by the accused with the travel agency. The trial court while appreciating the evidence on record refused to believe that such an amount could be refunded by the travel agency to the petitioner for the purposes of being dispersed to the persons who had given the same to the petitioner for arranging their passage from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner herein has been held guilty for an offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act. ( 4 ) WITH the assistance of counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Sate, I have gone through the statements of witnesses. Fourty five witnesses have stated that they had given money to the petitioner for arranging their passage from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. ( 4 ) WITH the assistance of counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Sate, I have gone through the statements of witnesses. Fourty five witnesses have stated that they had given money to the petitioner for arranging their passage from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. The travel agent with whom this money was deposited had stated that the petitioner has deposited this money with him which was later on refunded. The aforesaid witnesses who have been disbelieved by the trial court without giving any cogent reason ought not to have been disbelieved as their veracity has not been shattered in any manner in their cross-examination. ( 5 ) KEEPING in view the totality of the circumstances and the material on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to explain satisfactorily the ownership of amount of Rs. 10,89,000/- recovered from him by the police and therefore, cannot be held guilty for an offence under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order dated 12th October, 1995. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Crl. Rev. P. 266/1995 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Crl. M. A. 4604/2004 also stands disposed of. --- *** --- .