Interim Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR: ASJ-02:
PATIALA HOUSE COURT : NEW DELHI
Case No. 295/2023
State Vs. Tajeem & anr.
FIR No. 165/2023
PS: Special Cell
U/s: 489A/489B/489C/34 IPC
15.01.2024
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Arguments on the point of charge heard.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Tajeem that accused
Tazeem has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has
nothing to do with the alleged offence and recovery of FICNs has
been planted upon him. It is further submitted that there is no
incriminating evidence available on record to establish that the
accused was indulged in supplying/circulation of FICN and the only
case which can be made out against him is of the possession
punishable u/s 489C IPC.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Irshad @ Bhuru that
accused Irshad has been falsely implicated in the present case merely
on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Tajeem. It is further
submitted that accused Irshad @ Bhuru is not at all involved in the
manufacturing and supply of FICN and recovery of FICN has been
planted upon him.
4. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Irshad that there are
contradictions regarding seizure of incriminating articles as in the
-- 1 of 9 --
2
disclosure statement of accused, it has come that printer was
recovered from the house of the accused whereas in the seizure memo,
no printer has been shown to be recovered from the possession of
accused Irshad. It is further submitted that recovery of alleged
instruments used for manufacturing FICN has also been planted upon
him. It is further submitted that accused is a jeweller by profession
and printer and printing papers/pages are readily available in his shop
as well as in all jewellery shops but as per the FSL report of Currency
Note Press Nasik, the papers allegedly recovered from the possession
of accused Irshad cannot be at all used for preparing FICN.
5. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Irshad that accused
was not at all involved in selling, buying FICN and had no connection
with co-accused Tajeem in this regard.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for State has forcefully argued that both the accused
persons were involved in supply and circulation of FICN. It is
submitted that both the accused persons are living in the same locality.
It is further submitted that accused Tajeem had come to Delhi to
supply the FICN consignment and was waiting for the receiver to
come but when the receiver did not come, he made a move and at that
time, accused Tajeem was apprehended and FICN worth Rs.2,50,000/-
were recovered from his possession and accused Tajeem, on
interrogation, disclosed that he procured these FICNs from co-accused
Irshad who is indulged in manufacturing of FICN. It is further
submitted that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Tajeem,
the police party reached the house of accused Irshad at Uttar Pradesh
from where he was apprehended and FICN worth Rs.3 lacs were
-- 2 of 9 --
3
recovered and from the shop of the accused, equipment/tools used in
printing/manufacturing FICN were also recovered. It is further
submitted that both the accused persons were very much in contact
with each other which fact finds support from the Call Detail Records
of both the accused persons.
7. It is further submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that so far FSL result is
concerned qua the papersheets examined by him, the expert simply
says that it is not possible to ascertain if the FICNs can be printed
from the material examined by them.
8. Ld. Addl. PP has forcefully argued that at this stage, the veracity of the
prosecution witnesses is not to be tested and charge ought to be
framed against both the accused persons as prima facie a case for
offence punishable u/s 489A/489B/489C/34 IPC is made out against
both the accused persons.
9. Briefly stated: On receipt of secret information, on 10.11.2021, a raid
was conducted near Splash Water Park, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi from
where accused Tajeem was apprehended and FICN worth Rs.2.5 lacs
were recovered from his possession and accordingly, present FIR was
registered. Accused Tajeem was interrogated and made disclosure
statement in which he disclosed that accused Irshad is his neighbour
and a Goldsmith by profession and on being asked by the accused
Tajeem, he (accused Irshad) agreed to work with him in supply of
FICN and on several occasions, he supplied FICNs on the directions
of co-accused Irshad. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused
Irshad @ Bhuru was apprehended on 22.06.2023 from his residence at
-- 3 of 9 --
4
Kairana Uttar Pradesh and from the house of accused, FICN worth
Rs.3 lacs were recovered; he was also interrogated and his disclosure
statement was recorded in which he admitted that he learnt making
FICN from Youtube and he himself used to print FICN at his house
and has all the equipment/tools at his house required for the same i.e.
colour printer, wooden frame, fevikwik paper and green security
thread used in currency notes etc and thereafter on 23.06.2023, the
equipment/tools used in printing and manufacturing FICN were
recovered at his instance from his shop situated on the ground floor of
his house. During investigation, CDRs of mobile numbers of both the
accused persons were collected.
10. As per the report of Bank Note Press, Dewas Madhya Pradesh, the
referred suspected notes recovered from the accused persons are
counterfeited notes.
11. I have heard the rival submissions made by Ld. counsels for accused
persons as well as Ld. Addl. PP and also carefully gone through the
record.
12. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P, reported in
(2013) 11 SCC 476, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that at
the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the
material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, discloses the existence
of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court is not
expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record
and what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for
-- 4 of 9 --
5
presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for
convicting the accused has been made out. At this stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge
against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
13. In case of Rayab Jusab Sama Vs. State of Gujarat 1989 Crl. L J
942 and Shabbir Sheikh v. State of Madhya Pradesh Crl. Appeal
no. 162/2015, 452/2015 and 453/2015 decided on 10.05.2018
wherein it was constantly held that possession of large number of
FICN cannot be regarded as dormant possession of large number of
fake currency notes to be a case of active transportation of such notes.
Similarly, the Division Bench of Kolkata High Court in the case of
Sunil Pramanik @ Sonu v. State of West Bengal in CRA 562 of
2018, decided on 22.11.2019, held as under :-
“11. Section 489B uses the phrase “or otherwise traffics in or uses
as genuine”. This phrase assumes importance in the context of the
fact that the term “traffics” is not defined for the purpose of
Section 489B or for the IPC generally. The phrase “or otherwise
traffics in or uses as genuine” is added on to a string of phrases
which results in the sentence that delineates the ingredients of the
offence as defined in Section 489B; the punishment for which is
prescribed in that section. The activities which would amount to
an offence punishable under Section 489B of the IPC are firstly,
selling, buying or receiving. The provision to this effect in the
section is “whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other
person”. Therefore, the involvement of at least two persons is
necessary for performing the activity of selling, buying or
receiving which would amount to an offence for the purpose of
Section 489B. If that be so, an important issue for consideration
would be as to whether any activity which falls into the concept
“or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine” could be anything
that could be treated differently from selling, buying or receiving
or whether the term “traffics” has to be read ejusdem generis with
“sells”, “buys” or “receives”. It was argued on behalf of the
-- 5 of 9 --
6
appellant on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Parakh
Foods Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 4 SCC 584 that
the term “traffics” has to be read ejusdem generis with the
phrases “sells to”, “buys” and “receives from any other person”
and that the junction of another person is necessary to accomplish
such acts. It is here that use of the word “otherwise” gains critical
importance. The word “otherwise” is used to indicate the opposite
of, or contrast to, something already stated when used as part of a
phrase as “or otherwise”. Even when the word “otherwise” is
used not as part of a phrase as “or otherwise”, but as an adverb or
an adjective, such usages are also resorted to, to draw a contrast
or distinction. The word “traffics” as well as the word
“trafficking” and “trafficked” are used to describe the action of
dealing or trading in something illegal. The activity or activities
which would amount to “sells to”, “buys” or “receives from” any
other person, may require the participation of two persons to
complete any such transaction. However, any activity which
would fall within the phrase “otherwise traffics in” does not
indispensably require active participation of more than one
person if noticeably sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in the
possession of that person and such concealed possession cannot
be treated as dormant possession. It is active transportation which
amounts to trafficking. Any other mode of interpreting the phrase
“or otherwise traffics” would dilute the rigour of law. A strict and
literal interpretation of the penal provision contained in Section
489B of the IPC does not lead us to any other conclusion. Thus,
the phrase “or otherwise traffics” in Section 489B of the IPC
would take within its sweep, the action of dealing or trading in
forged counterfeit currency note or bank note even otherwise than
by selling, buying (purchase) or receiving. Therefore, the word
“traffics” and the phrase “or otherwise traffics in” in Section
489B of the IPC are not to be read ejusdem generis with the
words “sells”, “buys” or “receives”; but ought to be read to
understand that activities other than selling, buying or receiving
would also fall into the basket of the incriminating factors which
constitute the ingredients of the acts and omissions which is an
offence as per that Section.”
14.Therefore, involvement of atleast two persons is necessary for
selling, buying and receiving which would amount to offence
punishable u/s 489B IPC. However, any activity which would
fall within the phrase “otherwise traffics in” does not
indispensably require active participation of more than one
person if noticeably sizable quantity of FICN is found to be in
the possession of that person and such concealed possession
-- 6 of 9 --
7
cannot be treated as dormant possession. Hence, from the
above judgment, it is amply clear that act of the accused
persons in the present case falls under the purview of Section
489B IPC and under the category of ‘otherwise traffics’ as the
quantity of FICN recovered from the possession of the accused
persons cannot be regarded that the same was a dormant
possession in fact it was active possession of the FICN with an
intention to circulate the same.
15.The contentions raised by Ld. Counsels for accused persons
are subject matter of trial.
16.In the case at hand, 125 FICNs of Rs.2,000/- denomination
each have been recovered from accused Tajeem and 150
FICNs of denomination of Rs.2,000/- each were recovered
from the possession of accused Irshad @ Bhuru. At this stage,
the recovery effected at the instance of accused persons for an
amount of Rs.5,50,000/- cannot be ignored. As per the report
received from FSL, Rohini, Delhi regarding material
recovered from the possession of accused Irshad @ Bhuru i.e.
122 papers, green foil paper roll and wooden frame 18 X 16
inches, it has been opined that it has not been possible to
ascertain whether the paper sheets and green colour foil paper
roll are used in printing/manufacturing the currency notes and
hence, the report is inconclusive. Even otherwise, no material
come on record which suggests that articles recovered from
accused Irshad @ Bhuru were used in preparation of FICNs.
-- 7 of 9 --
8
17.As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that a prima facie case for framing of
charges against both the accused persons, namely, Tajeem
and Irshad @ Bhuru, is made out for the offence
punishable u/s 489B and 489C IPC.
18.Let the charge be framed accordingly.
Typed to the dictation directly,
corrected and pronounced in the
open Court on 15.01.2024
(Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
Additional Sessions Judge-02
New Delhi District, New Delhi
-- 8 of 9 --
SC No. 295/2023
State v. Tajeem & Ors
FIR No. 165 /2023
P.S Special Cell
15.01.2024
Present: Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
Accused Tajeem and Irshad @ Bhuru produced
from JC.
Sh. Yasir Arafat and Sh. Saifuddin Khan, Ld.
Counsel for accused Tajeem.
Sh. Manoj Manderna, Ld. Counsel for accused
Irshad @ Bhuru.
Today, the case is fixed for order on charge.
Vide separate order of even date, a prima facie case
for offence punishable u/s 489B and 489C IPC is made out
against accused Tajeem and Irshad @ Bhuru.
Formal charge for offence punishable u/s 489B and
489C IPC is framed against both the accused persons to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
List the matter for admission-denial of
documents, if any and PE on 29.02.2024.
An application has been moved on behalf of
accused Irshad @ Bhuru for grant of bail.
Issue notice of this bail application to the IO for
filing reply on 23.01.2024.
(Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
ASJ-02, NDD/PHC/New Delhi
15.01.2024
-- 9 of 9 --