Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1520 (BOM)

Manmit Saggu v. State of Maharashtra

2008-10-17

V.M.KANADE

body2008
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Learned APP for the State. 2. The Appellants are original Accused Nos.1 to 2. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 550 of 1995 along with Sessions Case No.985 of 1996. In Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2004, the Appellants are (1) Manmit Swarup Saggu @ Rocky and (2) Kulmit Swarup Saggu @ Kaka, who were original Accused Nos.1 and 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2004, the Appellant Mahesh Taneja was the original Accused No.4. Besides these Appellants, there were four other accused. Accused No.3 Ramsen Palawat was absconding and did not face the trial. Accused No.5 Babaji Bhogale and Accused No.6 Kanaram Choudhary had preferred separate appeals before this Court. However, they have already served the entire sentence and they withdrew their appeals. Accused No.7 was acquitted. 3. The Appellants have been convicted under section 255 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default to suffer R.I. for five months and, thereafter, have been further convicted under section 256 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for two months. They have been also convicted under section 259 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer further R.I. for four years and, in default, to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to suffer further R.I. for two months. The accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under section 257 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that an information was received by the D.C.B., C.I.D., Unit No.VI, Ghatkopar on 30.10.1994 that certain counterfeit stamps are being printed in the premises at Parel. In view of the said information, raid was conducted at Mankul Industries at Parel and it is the prosecution case that counterfeit stamps used for transfer of shares were being printed in the premises and many sheets of such stamps were found in the premises. It was also alleged that some printing material which was used in the premises was also recovered during the raid. 5. It was also alleged that some printing material which was used in the premises was also recovered during the raid. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses as follows: i) P.W.1 Pandurang Patil was P.I. attached to D.C.B., C.I.D. who had received the information, had verified the same and had given his F.I.R. ii) P.W. 2 Rupesh Redkar was a pancha witness in whose presence stamps were recovered at the instance of accused No.6 Choudhary. iii) P.W.3 Dharmendra Sone was a pancha witness in whose presence, cash of Rs.65,000/- was recovered at the instance of the Appellant- Accused No.2 Kulmit from his house. iv) P.W. 4 Shrikrishna Ringe was an important witness because he has acted as a pancha witness during the raid on 30.10.1994. v) P.W. 5 Sarvayya was a pancha witness in whose presence perforation machine was seized from the accused No.3 Ramsing. vi) P.W. 6 Satish Gamare was a photographer who had taken photographs during the raid, however, the photographs were not produced during trial. vii) P.W. 7 Naresh Dudhani was a witness who has introduced the accused No.3 Ramsing to the accused No.1 Manmit. viii) P.W.8 Sohail Buddha was attached to D.C.B., C.I.D. and who had recovered forged stamps from accused no.6 Choudhary. ix) P.W.9 Jayram Kulkarni was an expert from the Indian Security Press at Nashik, who had given his report in respect of the samples sent to him. x) P.W. 10 Pawde was attached to D.C.B., C.I.D. and he had recovered the films from the possession of accused No.5 Babaji Bhogale at the instance of the accused No.1 Manmit. xi) P.W.11 P.I. Vast was the Investigating Officer who was present during the raid. xii) P.W. 12 Patange was examined as a Court Commissioner who has submitted his report in respect of the printing machine kept in the said premises. 6. In defence, the Accused examined four witnesses. i) D.W.1 Kadam was the judicial clerk in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. ii) D.W. 2 Lamba was a technician who was examined to show that minimum three workers are necessary to operate the machines for printing purposes. iii) D.W. 3 Salkar was examined to show the number of skilled workers employed in Mankul Industries. iv) D.W. 4 Varulkar was examined to show the condition of the premises. 7. ii) D.W. 2 Lamba was a technician who was examined to show that minimum three workers are necessary to operate the machines for printing purposes. iii) D.W. 3 Salkar was examined to show the number of skilled workers employed in Mankul Industries. iv) D.W. 4 Varulkar was examined to show the condition of the premises. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the entire episode regarding the manner in which the raid was conducted was unnatural. He submitted that after receiving information, P.I. Chavan, PSI Vast when noticed that printing work was in progress, they immediately returned back to their office and lodged a complaint against four suspects. Thereafter, PSI Vast again went back to the said premises and carried out the actual raid. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the entire conduct of the officer was highly unnatural and it shows that the evidence was created much later implicating the accused. He invited my attention to the cross examination of these witnesses, wherein PSI Vasta admitted that after watching their presence he returned back to the police station and lodged his complaint. Secondly it was submitted that PW-1 had recovered Rs.65,000/- at the instance of the Accused No.2 from his house. However, panchanama was not shown to this witness, which was prepared by him at the time of arrest. The panchnama, also did not state what actually had transpired and what was actually seized during the raid. It was submitted that the pancha witness P.W.4 Shrikrishna Ringe could not be termed as an independent witness because he has admitted in the cross examination that he was residing in B.D.D. Chawl and one of the constables Mahadeo Jadhav was also residing in B.D.D. Chawl. It was further submitted that there was discrepancy regarding actual seizure of the material from the premises and P.W.4 has stated that 7 bundles were seized out of which 6 bundles were containing 1000 counterfeit sheets and he had further stated that one of the sheets from these six bundles was separated as a sample, leaving behind 999 sheets in each of these 6 bundles. However, in his deposition he has also stated that the bundles contained 1000, 936, 800, 999, 1094 and 985 sheets and a few blank sheets. However, in his deposition he has also stated that the bundles contained 1000, 936, 800, 999, 1094 and 985 sheets and a few blank sheets. It was submitted that the numbers do not tally and no explanation has been given by the prosecution regarding the discrepancy in the evidence of PW-4. Further, it was submitted that this witness has also admitted that out of 7 bundles of stamp, none of the bundles was found to be put on the machine. It is further submitted that P.W.6 Satish Gamare was the photographer, who had taken the photographs during the raid. However, neither the photographs nor the negatives were produced during the trial. He,therefore submitted that an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution. It was further submitted that Jayram Kulkarni was examined by the expert, who had given his opinion that the samples sent to him were forged. However, during the trial, the photosensitive plates and negatives were not sent to him and the opinion was not sought as to whether the seized forged stamps were actually printed by making use of those sensitive plates and negatives. 8. It was further submitted that recovery at the instance of Accused No.5 did not satisfy requirements of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, it was submitted that there was discrepancy in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-11 regarding the manner in which raiding party entered the place. Further, it was submitted that there was gross delay in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It was further submitted that there was a gap of 15 days in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. It was further submitted that therefore, the prosecution had chance to manipulate the record in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. Further, the carrier holder, who had taken the samples had not been examined. It was further submitted that, therefore, there was every possibility of the said samples having been tampered before they were sent for examination. 9. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposed the submission made by the Appellant. He submitted that though there have been some minor errors in prosecution investigation, all the witnesses have deposed that the Accused were caught red handed when they were in process of printing the counterfeit stamps. Entire machinery and the counterfeits photosensitive plates and negatives were seized. He submitted that though there have been some minor errors in prosecution investigation, all the witnesses have deposed that the Accused were caught red handed when they were in process of printing the counterfeit stamps. Entire machinery and the counterfeits photosensitive plates and negatives were seized. He submitted that merely there is a delay of fifteen days in sending the FIR that itself would not vitiate the trial, particularly because the raid was conducted after the information was received by the Investigating Officer. He submitted that there was nothing unnatural on the part of the Investigating Officer. He first verified whether the information was received by him was correct or not and, thereafter recorded an FIR and raided the premises. 10. In the present case, this Court by an order dated 15th September, 2008 had noticed that Article “H” which are two photosensitive plates seized from the scene of the offence and certain photo negatives which are article “O” seized at the instance of the Accused No.1 from the Accused No.5 were not sent for comparative analysis with samples sheets of forged stamps. This Court, therefore, by the said order had directed the Registrar General to handover the aforesaid articles to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of obtaining the report of an expert. Pursuant to the said order, a report was sent in a sealed cover and it was opened in the Court by order dated 25th September, 2008. However, the Counsel for the Appellant wanted to consider whether the same can be admitted under section 292 of the Code of Cr. P.C. or whether an application could be made for calling the expert for cross examination. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that he did not wish to admit the said report. In my view, even if no reliance is placed on the said report, the other evidence which is on record is sufficient for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt that there is a case against the present accused. 12. In my view, even if no reliance is placed on the said report, the other evidence which is on record is sufficient for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt that there is a case against the present accused. 12. Though there are some discrepancies in the prosecution case, such as not sending the FIR in time or discrepancy in the evidence of Investigating officer and PW-4 regarding the manner in which the raid was conducted and also further discrepancy in respect of bundles, which were seized or nonexamination of the carrier holder, who took the sample. These discrepancies do not have the effect on verifying the case of the prosecution. It cannot be said that the conduct of the Investigating Officer in verifying whether the information received by him was correct or not, is unnatural. The Investigating Officer, in fact, had taken an extreme care to ensure that he was not conducting the raid on any incorrect information, which was given to him. He, therefore, went to the police station, verified the printing of the counterfeit stamps, came back, reported an FIR, mentioned the names of the four accused and, thereafter, went there with raiding party, which included a pancha and caught the Accused red-handed when the printing of the counterfeit stamps was in progress. Merely because pancha was residing in the building in which one of the constables was residing, it cannot be said that the witness was not an independent witness. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the complaint and need to urgently get a panch witness, he may have called the person who was available at the spot. Further, though it is true that the counterfeit stamps were not on the printing machine when the raid took place, the witnesses have stated that they witnessed the accused printing the counterfeit stamps and, thereafter, Accused No.1 stopped the machine. This evidence, therefore, clearly shows that the Accused were caught red-handed while they were processing the counterfeit stamps. This evidence has been corroborated by all the persons, who were in the raiding party. The submission made by the Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted. 13. This evidence, therefore, clearly shows that the Accused were caught red-handed while they were processing the counterfeit stamps. This evidence has been corroborated by all the persons, who were in the raiding party. The submission made by the Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted. 13. For the purpose of proving the offence punishable under sections 255, 256 and 258 it has to be established that the accused was knowingly performing any part of the process of counterfeiting any stamp issued by the Government for the purpose of revenue and section 256 lays down that “whoever has in his possession any instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting any stamp issued by Government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall be liable to fine”. In the present case, the accused was caught red-handed. The printing machinery was seized. Though there is some discrepancy in the opinion given by the expert whether the negatives, which were found were actually used for the purpose of printing the said counterfeit stamps, the fact that the said stamps which were found in their possession were counterfeit stamps has been established in his evidence. Therefore, in my view no case is made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The judgment and order of the Sessions Court, is therefore confirmed. 14. So far as the question of reducing the sentence of the Accused is concerned, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that the Appellants are the only earning members of the family and that their parents are old and suffering from various ailments. He further submitted that more than 14 years have been elapsed from the commission of said offence and Appellants have already undergone more than 3 ½ and 4 ½ of sentence and other Appellant Taneja has undergone 5 years of sentence. He submitted that therefore, the sentence may be reduced. 14. He further submitted that more than 14 years have been elapsed from the commission of said offence and Appellants have already undergone more than 3 ½ and 4 ½ of sentence and other Appellant Taneja has undergone 5 years of sentence. He submitted that therefore, the sentence may be reduced. 14. Taking an over all view of the matter and in view of the fact that there is some discrepancy in the evidence given by the expert regarding the actual use of the negatives for the purpose of printing the counterfeit stamps and also taking into consideration that this is an old case of 1994, the sentence of the accused is reduced from seven years to six years. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction is confirmed. The sentence, however, is reduced from seven years to six years. The Appellants have already paid the fine which was imposed upon them. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.