JUDG.

10/11

1 ExhibitNo.282

INTHECOURTOFSPECIALJUDGEFORGR.BOMBAY SPECIALCASENO.10OF2011. StateofMaharashtra. (AttheinstanceofCBI RCNo.9(E)/2004/EOU7. Versus ) ) )....Complainant

1.AbdulKarimLadsahebTelgi Age:52years. R/o.ShirinManzil,1stfloor, VoltanRoad,Opp.ElectricHouse, ) Colaba,Mumbai. 2.ShabirAhmedMustaqAhmedShaikh ) Age:55. R/o.ChawlNo.46,RoomNo.363, GajananColony,ShivajiNagar, Govandi,Mumbai400043. 3.Mohd.SayedMohd.Yasin R/o.22/3B,BrightStreet, ParkCircus,Calcutta. 4.RamratanShreeniwasSoni Age:47years. R/o.57/59,3rdfloor,Bhuleshwar, Mumbai400002.(AtpresentinJail). 5.SanjayJayantGaikwad R/o.C204,RanDarshanBldg., ChandiwaliMhada,Sakinaka, Andheri(E),Mumbai.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JUDG.10/11 6.RiyazAhmedMokashi R/o.HouseNo.258, NagenderMattiHaveri, Karnataka. 7.MalleshBallappaDhullanwar R/o.VidyaNagar,Khanpur, Dist.Belgaun,Karnataka. 8.DanielV .Kanikraj R/o.Khanpur,Dist.Belgaun, Karnataka. 9.GanpatWamanJadhav Age:49years. R/o.5,GulMoharGardenLane, 7,ShereEPunjabSociety, N.C.Road,MahakaliCavesRoad, Andheri(E),Mumbai400093.

2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )....Accused

10.EnamMukhtaraliPirbhaiChoudhary R/o.AsmitaRegencyII,FlatNo.A605, ) NayaNagar,MiraRoad,Thane, Maharashtra.

Mr.PradeepGharat,SpecialP .forComplainantCBI. .P A1&A2appearinginPerson. Mr.NitinSejpal,learnedadvocateforAccusednos.3,7&8. Mr.Jain,learnedadvocateforAccusednos.4&6. Mr.R.Sawant,learnedadvocateforAccusedno.5. Mr.I.P .Bagaria,learnedadvocateforAccusedno.9. Mr.Iyengar,learnedadvocateforAccusedno.10. CORAM:HISHONOURTHESPECIALJUDGE SHRI.A.SUBRAMANIAM . DATE:29THFEBRUARY,2012.

JUDG.10/11

JUDGMENT
1. The present accused are being tried for alleged offences

punishableu/s.255,256,258,259,260,465,466,467,468,471,472, 420,nineteen,218,221r/w120BoftheIPCand63(a),(b)ofBombay Stamps Act, 1ten58 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of CorruptionAct,1988. 2. Thiscasepertainstothestampscamwhichrockedtheentire

nationandcommonknownasTelgiStampScam.Thiscaseisoneof theinitialcaseswhichcametoberegisteredagainstTelgi.Thepresent casedealswithfirstFIRwhichwasregisteredatGB,CB,CIDMumbai bearing No. 41/1995 and was subsequently filed as A summary. Subsequently,whenintheyear2002,theenormityofthescamofTelgi cametolight.Thereaftertheinvestigation,inviewofthedirections andordersoftheHon'bleHighCourtofBombaySpecialInvestigating Team (SIT) was formed and investigation was transferred to SIT . Aftersometime,thesaidinvestigationcametobetransferredtothe CBIinviewofthedirectionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia. ThematterwastransferredtoCBIinviewofthedirectionspassedby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

JUDG.10/11 522/2003ddated15.3.2004. 3.

The CBI registered crime bearing No. RC9/E/2004

CBI,EOW,Mumbai. Duringthecourseofthesetransactions,charge sheetcametobefiledinitiallybytheDCB,CIDbearingSessionscase No.753of2003,886/03,757and488/03againstaccusednos.17. Thechargesheetagainstaccusedno9cametobefiledbySIT.Charge sheetagainstaccusedno7,8cametobefiledbyCBIintheSpecial Court. The chargesheet filed by the CBI came to be registered as SessionsCase No.550/2006. Asall theabove SessionsCases were terminated or investigation completed by the chargesheet of CBI, theseSessionsCaseNos.753/2003,756/2003,747/2003,488/2003, stand merged with one. The Sessions case no 550/06 was later numberedasspecialcaseno.1011.Allthechargesheetswerefiled beforetheLearnedMetropolitanMagistrateandastheoffenceswere exclusivelytriablebytheCourtofSessions,cametobecommittedto theCourtofSession.AsothertrialsofTelgiwereallottedtothiscourt, allthesaidSessionscasescametobeallottedtotheSpecialCourt. Initially the trial was conducted under number 550/2006 but as provisionsofPCActwereinvokedtheCasewasreregisteredasspecial

JUDG.10/11 caseno1011. 4.

ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthattheSuperintendentof

General Stamp Office in Mumbai found that accused no.1 and his colleagues/associates were dealing in counterfeit stamps. He accordinglyapproachedtheCrimeBranch,OfficeoftheDCB,CIDand wasdirectedtolodgeseparateoffencespertainingtoeachcounterfeit case discovered within its particular jurisdiction. Accordingly, he approachedtheCrimebranchandwasredirectedtoGBCIDwherehe hadlodgedcomplaint. Theaccusedno.9wasgiveninvestigationof thesaidoffence.Hemadesomeenquirieswithsomeofthewitnesses viz. Ashok Leyland Finance, bank officials etc. In the mean while, accused no.1 filed anticipatory bail application before the Hon'ble Sessions Court which was objected to by the accused no.9 and subsequentlyrejected.Subsequentthereto,theaccusedno.1preferred an application for grant of bail in the event of arrest, before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. During the course of proceedings beforetheHon'bleHighCourtofBombay,atthetimewhenorderwas beingpassedorassoonastheorderwaspassed,accusedno.1escaped fromtheHon'bleHighCourt. ThereafterthepresentaccusedNo.9

JUDG.10/11

Jadhav tried to search his whereabouts, but he was not traceable accordingtohim.Subsequently,TelgiwasarrestedbyBangalorepolice intheyear2002and2003andthepresentcaseswereagainreopened. Initially, the investigation was thereafter given to DCB,CID. They carriedouttheinvestigationandfoundsomeoftheaccomplicesviz. accused nos. 3,4 & 5 were the suppliers of stamps to accused no.1 (hereinafterreferredtoassuppliers).Accusednos.2,6,7,8&10were working with accused no.1 and were taking part in the counterfeit process(hereinafterreferredtoasworkeraccused). Accusedno9is theaccusedinvestigationofficer. 5. Initiallyaccusednos.1to8weredetectedbyDCB,CIDand

chargesheets came to be filed. Subsequently, there were few circumstances which raised hue and cry and led to filing of a Writ PetitionbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtof Bombaybysocialactivist Shri Anna Hazare. In that proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court of BombayformedthespecialInvestigationTeamtolookintotheoffences againstTelgi.Duringthecourseofproceedings,itwasprimafacie,felt that certain police officers were also responsible and hence, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay directed investigation pertaining to

JUDG.10/11

culpabilityofpoliceofficers.Accordingly,investigationwascarriedout anditwasfoundthatactsandomissionsbyaccusedno.9weredone purposefully to assist Telgi. Various acts and omissions of accused Jadhav were enumerated which he performed or failed to perform duringhiscourseofinvestigation.Itisalsoallegedthatheprepareda falsepanchnamaofseizurefromMopalwar. 6. SubsequentlyinviewoftheorderoftheHon'bleSupreme

CourtofIndia,investigationwashandedovertotheCBI. Asother similarcaseswerependinginthiscourtthechargesheetfiledcameto becommittedandcametobeclubbedinthiscourt.Duringthecourse of trial, the prosecution prayed for filing of sanction and invoking provisions of P Act also against accused no.9Jadhav. Same was .C. allowedafterhearingtheaccused. 7. Duringthecourseofinvestigation,SpecialAdhesiveStamps

werehandedovertoaccusedno.9Jadhavinitially,whichsubsequently handedovertoCBI. ThevariousstatementsofTelgi,AshokLeyland officials, and other accused also investigated into, various other co workers of accused no.1 were investigated, some of the coworkers were dropped and were not tried and made as witnesses, the

JUDG.10/11

documents were forwarded to Security Press, FSL and GEQD for examination. After receiving report and recording statements of variouswitnessesandconsideringthefactsofthecase,chargecameto beframedagainsttheaccusedasperthechargesheetfiled. 8. My learned predecessor was pleased to frame charge

againsttheaccused. Thechargewasreadoverandexplainedtothe accused.Alltheaccusedpleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried. 9. Theprosecutioninpursuancethereto,ledtheirevidence.

Theprosecutioninallexamined61witnesses.P .W.1isBhagwanHule, policeofficerinGB.CB,CIDwhoseallegedfalsepresencewasmarked during the panchnama. P .W.2DilipDeshmukhisofficerIOofDCB CID. P .W.3isMopalwar,Superintendentofstampsandcomplainant. P .W.4istheallegedpanchtofalsepanchnamapreparedbytheaccused no9Jadhav. P 5 is the police personnel of GB CID who is also .W. falselyallegedtohavegoneforraidwithaccusedno9,PW6&7are workersintheofficeofTelgi,P .W.8istheIOofDCBCID,P .W.9Shri BholeisalsoIOoftheSIT,P .W.10istheSanctioningauthorityunder thePCAct.PW11isthesanctioningauthorityundertheStampAct. PW 12 is the sanctioning authority. P13 & PW 14 are the persons

JUDG.10/11

relatedtoMohdYasin.Pw15istheSrofficerofAccusedJadhavinGB, CID,PW16isdriverofMohdYasin.PW17istheinvestigatingofficer ofCBIandPw18istheLdMagistratewhorecordedtheconfessionof Telgi 10. Prosecutionalsorelieduponnumberofdocumentsviz.the

licenceofTelgi,applicationofTelgiforlicence,theagreementhaving specialadhesivestampcollectedfromAshokLeyland,variousaccounts, statementsandaccountopeningformsofTelgiofStateBankofIndia, Bank of Baroda, sanction, the agreements having forged, adhesive stamps from Ashok Leyland, various extracts and hotel registers, opinionoftheexpert,subsequentreceiptsoftheGSO,forgedreceipts oftheGSO,subsequentsignaturesandsubsequentstampimpressions of the GSO Office, the case diary of investigation maintained by accused no.9 Jadhav. Most often documents were admitted by the accused.Thereaftertheprosecutionclosedtheirevidence. 11. As there was incriminating evidence against the accused,

mylearnedpredecessorrecordedstatementsoftheaccusedu/s.313of Cr.P Accused no.1 accepted partly his guilt, but submits that the .C. complainantMopalwarwasalsoinvolvedintheincidentandhence,he

JUDG.10/11

10

should also be prosecuted accordingly. He also tendered a detailed writtenstatement.Hehasalsopointedoutthatheispoor,hehasno moneyandheissufferingfromvariousailments. 12. case. 13. Accused Jadhav submitted a detailed written statement Allotheraccusedraisedgroundoffalseimplicationinthe

along with supporting documents, taking of defence of false implication.Hehasfurtherstatedthatthecaseswerehandledbythe investigatingofficerin1995assolitary/isolatedoccurrencesanddid notknowaboutthelargeroffencesofTelgi.Investigationpaperswere placedwithmanyofficersincluding,thecrimeP .I.,Sr.P .I.,ACP ,DCP , Minister,government,butnonecouldcomprehendtheenormityofthe allegations.Thatinvestigationwasdoneproperlyhasbeenendorsedby the Sr. P and ACP As regards escape of Telgi from the court, he .I. . submitsthathedidnotanticipatethatTelgiwouldleavethecourthall beforepassingoforderonanticipatorybailapplication.Thechargesof escapeofTelgiaremadefalselywithoutrecordinganystatementfrom anywitnesses.Hehasbeenvictimized.Therewasnoguidancegiven by the higher officials, the order of the Hon'ble High Court is

JUDG.10/11

11

misinterpretedandmisclubbed.TheprovisionsofP .C.Actwerelevied againsthimasperthesayoftheSpecialPublicProsecutor.TheS.P . .P hasparticipatedininvestigationandhasassociatedhimselfwiththe investigation.TheinvokingofP .C.Actshowsthemalafideintentionof thelearnedprosecutor.TheeffectofapplicationofP .C.Actwasnot disclosedearlierwhenthedischargeapplicationwasfiled. Material witnessesliketheACP ,thelearnedP .Mr. Nalawade havenotbeen .P examined. He had number of matters for investigation during that time.Hesubmittedthatunlesstheauthoroftheforgerycouldnotbe arrested,thedocumentswerenotsentforverificationtotheexpert, specimen signatures were required, the witnesses who committed forgery were not traced. Telgi was not arrested from 1996 or the efforts of his arrest were also not made. He also relied upon a gazette/notificationofformationofSIT,transferofinvestigationtothe SIT, affidavit of Mr. S. Barve before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ PetitionNo.865/2003,LAQsetc. 14. AccusedNo10wasarrestedlateron.MyLDpredecessor

hadframedchargeagainsthim.Subsequentlytheprosecutionalsoled evidenceof3witnesseswhoareworkersofTelgi.Itwasadmittedthat

JUDG.10/11 hewasworkingintheofficeofTelgi. 15.

12

Astherewasincriminatingevidenceagainsttheaccused,I

recordedhisstatementu/s313ofCrPC.Heputupdefenceofdenial andfalseimplication. 16. Thematterwasheardearlierbymylearnedpredecessor,

but thereafter she came to be transferred. I again reheard all the accused.Theyalsofiledwrittenargumentswhichhavebeenperused byme. 17. HeardMr.GharatlearnedS.P .forCBI.Hesubmittedthat .P

theircontentionisothercasesshouldalsobeconsideredinthiscasein additionhesubmittedthat:
1stCCwasfiledbyPIKhade164200375303 2ndCCwasfiledbyPIKhade85200375603 3stCCwasfiledbyPIKhade69200375703 4thCCwasfiledbyPIKhade25110384903 5thCCwasfiledbyBySIT45804 6thCCwasfiledbyCBI55006 Alltheaccusedhaveadmittedallthedocumentsexceptconfessionofaccused confessionofTelgiprovedatExh150 casediarybyJadhavExh91 AccusedgaveconfessionMoplawarbecametheaccused.Saidconfessionreliedfor

JUDG.10/11

13

makingMopalwarasaccused.Henceconfessionacceptedbycourt. NoremarksbyHon'bleHighCourtontheissueofjoiningofMopalwar.Saidorder subjudice. Defence of false accused implicated and accused converted as witnesses. No evidenceastowhyJadhavexoneratedtheaccused. PerusalofcrimereportsshowsthatonrecordingthestatementsofPonnuduraiand Yahoo, Jadhav knew the name of Riyaz and Mallesh. Did not carry out any investigationintheirbehalf. Adv Manish Parekh is the complainant in MRA Case. Knew names of Sanjay GaikwadandSonifromMukhedkar(MRA).InvolvementofSanjayGaikwadisseen fromstatementofManishparekh,calledsanjaygaikwad,recordedhisstatement andthenwasleftoffon291195. FROMSTATEMENTOFSANJAYGAIKWADrecordsthatSGaikwadhadlicenceto sellstampsinPunehoweverhewassellingstampsinMumbai.Sufficienttoshow hisinvolvementintheoffice, didnotinterrogatetheaccused.Didnotsendthe stampbillstoISPandFSKandGEQD,wasinchargeofInvestigationfor1and 1/2yr.ArrestofTelginotrequiredforsendingdocuments.LetterwrittenbyTelgi seized.Handwriting ofTelgi avaialableinthisdocument and bank record. On 241095TelgiappearedbeforeIO.WhynoinquirybytheI.O.ofTelgi?Santosh Sakpalaccusedwasavailable.Noinvestigationwithhimandorabouthim. Not followedinstructionsofAPPBorade.TooknostepstotraceandarrestRamratan Soni.ShouldhaveverifiedthestampseizedfromSoni.Banka/cavailable.Didnot

JUDG.10/11

14

verify from whom amounts received and to whom paid and for what purpose, stamps could be reused. Hence examination by FSL necessary, Failure to nab accusedatthetimeofABAtracedaddressofTelgiatThane.Cametoknowthat flat belonged to one Shahida. Shaida is wife of Telgi. Prepared bogus panchnama.ConsequencesofsuchactsofIOimportant. Resultofmischiefwouldhaveresultedinacquittalofaccused.ShowsthatJadhav wantedthecourttodisbelievethepanchasandresultinaccusedbeingacquitted. Exhs. 33 and 34 letters by Mr. Mopalwar furnishing other addresses of Telgi. MopalwarwasnotIOandtobetreatedassuch. Exh95SRofficerstatesthataccusedisinMumbaiandmovinginpoliticalcircles. Givesdirectiontofilesupplementarychargesheet(entryno37). Assoonasitisshownbythesr.policeofficerthatTelgiisavailableinMumbai.The casediaryhasbeenstoppedwriting,Exh.95goesagainsttheaccused.Tohelp accusedchargesheetnotpreparedandfiledincourt. Confession provedthroughpw18Magistrate. VersionofSakpalcontrarytoTelgiconfessionalstatement.ConfessionofSakpal nottakenintoconsideration.Telgi'sconfessionisinculpatoryhencereliedupon. financialdealingsofofficersisrevealedintheconfession. Rs2lakhsacceptedbyJadhav,assuredwillnotarrest. PW8PramodKhade Chargesheetsfiledbyhim.Doesnotfurtherevidenceofaccused.

JUDG.10/11

15

TheywerehissuperiorofficersbutnotinSITorTelgicases. PW9BholeofficerofSIT. Prosecutionexaminedallthewitnessesandhasalsoshownthedrawbacksofthe case.

Ld.SPPrequestedforreadingtheearlierevidencein111and112and defenceCounselhasnoobjectionandincontinuationoftheearlier evidence,thematerproceeds. A/9 Ganpat Jadhav was doing the investigation since 31.7.1995 to 13.5.1997.
Knowledge of offence and allegations on Telgi not denied. Omission and commissions not rebutted to be false. No explanation in this regard in cross examination.DidnotdenythatBholewasgivensatisfactoryreplybyA9.

Weeklyreportandchargesheetsubmissionnotcomplied PW5: DidnotaccompanyforABAinHC.Evenontouchstoneofprobability there is no justification. Such alleged justification cannot justify omissionsandcommissions. PWAnamiRoy: SanctionPCactprovedatExh.129,nootherdetailsrequired.Cross shows that papers were read and appreciated, acts of omission and

JUDG.10/11 commissionproved. Asregardsotherotheraccused

16

ProsecutionWitnessNo.6AnilJayramBambani ProsecutionWitnessNo.7Mohd.IsmailYahoo ProsecutionWitnessNo.13BimalNarayanDas hisevidencereadtogetherwithPW14,16. A/3Mohd.SaeedMohd.Yasinwasdealinginstampbusinessandhe used to supply used stamps viz. Indian stamps, foreign bill stamps, fiscalstamps,toaccusedMohd.Yasinfrom1984to1994. Prosecution Witness No.16 Istiaque was working with accd. Mohd.Yasinas adriver and used to pickupKarimbhai Mohd.Yasin from Airport to Hotel Hira International, Calcutta, had seen small stampsinhishousemanytime, hadseenthestampsweresoakedin waterandthereafterafterdryingthesame,theywerepackedup.Then theyusedtotaketoFlykingCourierandothercouriers. EstablishesroleofaccusedYaseenCalcutta. Telgiisthemainaccused. Hehasgivenconfession. Accusedno.2is the first assistant of Telgi, accused no.3 is a supplier of stamps to Banks,accusedno.4istheanothersupplierofstampsofBanks,the

JUDG.10/11

17

accusednos.6 and7,8&10arestaffofTelgi,accusedno5isagain supplieroffakestamps,accusedno.8isdriverofTelgi,accusedno.9 Jadhav is the investigating officer who carried out investigation initially.HesubmittedthatMr.Mopalwarfirstfiledcomplaintwiththe Cuffe Parade police station. The investigation was handed over to accused no.9Jadhav. He did not file chargesheet by completing investigation. Social activist Mr. Anna Hazare filed writ petition bearing No. 865/2003 wherein the offence was transferred for investigationtoSIT.TheHon'bleHighCourtofBombaypassedorders offindingofculpabilityofpoliceofficers,theprivatesectorandpublic sector employees on 4.9.2003. Incharge of SIT, SS Puri, Barve investigatedtheoffenceinMumbaiandJaiswalatPune. Hefound that there was lapse in investigation. Thereafter investigation was handedovertoCBIasperthedirectionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt ofIndia.Hesubmittedthatfromtheevidenceofwitnesses,thefacts of transaction with Ashok Leyland stands established, the various amountspaidtoTelgialsostandsestablished,theissuanceofreceipts tothemofthefirmofTelgiaswellastheGSOalsostandsestablished. Thefactthataccusedno.1receivedtheamountstandsestablishedby

JUDG.10/11

18

thestatementsof theStateBankofIndia,BankofBarodaandCiti Bank. The encashment of cheque and transfer of sale proceeds in favourofBankstandsestablished.Hefurthersubmittedthatfromthe evidenceoftheofficersoftheGSOviz.Mr.Mopalwar,anddocuments provedthefactthatthefactthatthestampsandaffixationofstamps being counterfeit and the receipts being forged stands established. These witnesses have not been crossexamined and they established theaspectofthereceiptsandstampsbeingcounterfeit.Thefactthat the receipts were embossed with fake stamps of GSO and also signatures of the proper authorised person is also forged stands established by these authorities. He submitted that this aspect is furthercorroboratedbythevariousexpertsviz.oftheFSL,GEQD,ISP etc. HefurthersubmittedthatthecomplaintatEx.107filedbythe SuperintendentofStampsMr.Mopalwarstandsestablishedandinfact isadmitted.Hesubmittedthataccusednos.1to8&10werepartof original conspiracy for using fraudulent adhesive stamps. Accused Jadhavisanaccusedforaidingandabettingconspiracyofaccusednos. 1to8&10byintentionalactsofomissionsfacilitatingtheconspiracy. Hefurthersubmittedthatspecialadhesivestampscannotbesoldby

JUDG.10/11

19

anyoneexceptbytheGSO.Accusedno.1pretendedtobeafacilitator ingettingthisprocessdonefromtheGSO. Confessionrecordedby Telgi in Special Case No. 10/2011 has to be considered. The confession is corroborated by various witnesses and establishes the case of prosecution. He further submitted that in view of the confessionmade,P .W.3wasmadeaccusedandhence,saidconfession canalsobereadinthisorder.Consideringallthesecircumstances,he submitted that prosecution has established the conspiracy of counterfeitingofstampsandforgingofreceiptsandotheraspectsas perthechargeagainstalltheaccusedandtheybeconvicted. 18. AllthepartiessuggestedthatMr.Bagariawouldleadthe

arguments. He initially reiterated the contents of defence as to be dealt in the written statement by accused no.9Jadhav. He further submittedthattheallegedomissionsmadebypresentaccusedarealso made by other police officers but they are not prosecuted. Even Mukhedkar, investigating officer of MRA Marg police station had committedthesimilaracts,buthehasnotbeenprosecuted.Theentire prosecution case according to him, relies upon the basis of investigation carried out by MRA Marg police station. He further

JUDG.10/11

20

submitted that except filing of chargesheet by MRA Marg police station,nootherdifferenceininvestigationismadeout. Apparently, the rubber stamps used in MRA PS were not used in the present offence,hence,involvementofSoniandGaikwadinthepresentcase was not revealed. Further, he submitted that there was no link available and in absence of this, further investigation could not be carried out. Further he submitted that the investigation which was paramount was that Telgi or said Javed should be interrogated and onlythereafterfurthercourseofinvestigationcouldbecarriedout.So called investigation carried out by the SIT and CBI is based on investigationwhichwasavailableinotheroffencesofBangaloreand otherpolicestations. Fromtheevidence,itisapparentthatafterthe offencewasregisteredbyMr.Mopalwar,Telgiclosedallthebusinesses andranaway. HesubmittedthattheMRAMargpolicestationcase was purposefully hastened so that present accused would not have properchanceofdefence.Forreasonsbestknowntotheprosecution, thesaidtrialwasconductedseparately. Rightoffairtrailhasbeen denied. No sanction was filed nor charges under prevention of corruption act were contemplated when first chargesheet filed,

JUDG.10/11

21

cognizance taken without sanction u/s. 197, entire proceedings vitiated. Thereisnosanctionascontemplatedbylaw. Thereisno applicationofmindasapplicableforgrantofsanctionandsanctionis invalidandillegal. 19. Asregardsconfession,hesubmittedthatconfessioncanbe

only corroborative piece of evidence. Confession narrated various contradictory stories not supported by evidence on record. Not reliable.Confessionasafterthoughtandshouldbebrushedaside intoto. 20. TheCBIhasnotinvokedprovisionsofPCAct. Eventhe

roleofinvokingofP .C.Actliesonlywiththeprosecutor.Itisapparent fromtheRoznamadated15.9.1995,thatthetrialofMRAMargpolice stationthoughwithintheperiodof19931996wasnotclubbedwith theseoffence.Alltheprocedureascontemplatedbylawwasfollowed by accused no.9Jadhav. Apparently, it is seen that no financial transactiontookplacebetweenaccusednos.1andJadhavandthereis noevidencetothateffect.Eventhesubsequentinvestigatingofficer, afteraccusedJadhavdidnotdoanyactbuttheywerenotprosecuted. NocognizanceundertheP .C.ActbytheSpecialCourt. Jointtrialis

JUDG.10/11

22

misjoinder. EventheorderoffindingtheculpabilityoftheI.O.was applicableonlytothePunecaseandnottheMumbaicase.Underthe garb of the Hon'ble High Court order, the accused Jadhav is prosecuted.Trialisfrustratedbecauseofnoorderofreallotment.Itis contended that accused pleaded guilty and he should have been removedfromthearrayofaccused.NoprovisionsofSec.161ofthe Bombay Police Act, the investigation is to be carried out within six months,provisionsofSec.109,218cannotbeattracted,thealleged witnessesofstaffofTelgiwereinfactarraignedasaccused.However, theirroleisconvertedisnotshown. Thereisnopropercommittal, thereisnocognizance,henceentiretrialisvitiated. ThelearnedP . .P has violated the process of justice has associated himself with the investigationbecauseofhisinefficiency,improbableconductandhas not taken appropriate precaution. This is resulted in nullifying the decisionoftheHon'bleHighCourtof Bombay. Thebenefitofsaid lapseshasgonetotheaccusedandentiretrialstandsvitiated. 21. Asregardssanctionandasregardsthecasediaryleading

questions have been asked which cannot be accepted. There is no applicationofmindwhilegrantingsanctiontoprosecuteA/9Jadhav.

JUDG.10/11

23

Shows non application of mind does not know how many chargesheetsfiledorwhocarriedoutinvestigation. Therewasno materialbeforetheCourttoshowthatA/9Jadhavhadmademonetary gaininthepresentcase.Hence13(d)ofPCactisnotapplicable,no disciplinaryactionorreportwasmadebythesuperiorofficerwhohad regularly perused the case diary. Further he submitted that the investigationalsowasnottakenawayfromaccusedno.9Jadhavwhich shows that course of investigation was proper and correct. Not arrestingTelgiinthecourtcannotbeanoffence,theevidenceofMr. MopalwarandMr.NalawaderegardingHon'bleHighCourtincidentis important, independentwitnessMr.Nalawadeisnotexamined. In fact, the application was strongly opposed and the anticipatory bail applicationwasrejected. IftherewasintentiontosupportTelgi,the applicationcouldnothavebeenresistedasTelgiwasgrantedbailin othercases.ThestatementsofMr.Mopalwarandotherwitnesseswere recordedbelatedly.TheinvolvementofMr.Mopalwarisapparentfrom theconfessionalstatementofTelgi,Thereisfraudplayedonthecourt, Mr. Gharat appeared as Special P . on 13.2.1995. Fact was not .P disclosedofconstitutionofSITtill17.3.2004. Beforeinvolvementof

JUDG.10/11

24

accused Jadhav, no investigation was carried out by the SIT. Investigation was carried out by SIT with predecided manner to implicateMr.Jadhav.AlltheomissionsarecommittedbySITalso.The constablesPW1Hule,PW5cannotberelieduponastheyhavenot producedtheirpocketdiary.Statementrecordedbelatedly,delaynot explainedbyprosecution,witnessorIO.Delaywastopressurisethe lowerofficer/witnesstoimplicatetheaccused.Statementwasrecorded inabsenceofanydocument.Statementrecordedafterlapseof14yrs. There could have been an error of judgment which could not have beenforeseen.Theinvestigationwascarriedouttothebestcapacity, capability and intellectuality etc. of investigating officer. Thus, the investigationwasinprogress,theinvestigationwasfoundtobeproper aftereightyears,theirinvestigationisbeingfaulted.Consideringall thesecircumstances,therewasnointentiontosaveTelgi,thereisno criminalconspiracywhichshowsarrestfromtheevidence. On 1/12/1995 In court premises accused could not be arrested. During the course of hearing accused could not have arrested. In presence of court andprosecutorif anythingtranspired, Prosecutor couldhavereportedtothesuperiorofficers/courtaboutmisconduct.

JUDG.10/11

25

Event outside the scope of 221. Running away of accused form the court cannot be equated to assisting escape of the accused. pages 1684asinvestigatedbyAccusedaremissingandmisplaced. From10/1/2004to2/2/2004nostatementsofotherofficersrecorded. Nonewmaterialeventhenarrested.Aftersittingoversamematerial IOBholestatesthatoffenceismadeout.Jt.C.P .onsamematerialsays thatInvestigationincorrect.Highhandedillegalarrest.andaccusedbe acquitted. 22. Asregards,Soni,itiscontendedthatthereisnoevidence

onrecordtoshowinvolvementofconspiracy.Theregisterdonottally ortoinvolvementofTelgiwithSoni.Oneortwovisitspriortointhe year 1992 cannot suggest criminal conspiracy. As regards Mokashi, thereisnoevidenceexcepthebeingmemberofthestaffandcollecting documentsfrommarketingexecutiveandreturningbacktotheoffice. Asregards,MalleshDhulanwaralsothereisnosuchevidence,theyare merelyworkersanddoingdutyastoldbytheirboss.Allthewitnesses purportingtoimplicatethemwereshownasaccused. Thewitnesses wereaccomplicesandparticipatedoftruthoncrime,poorpersonslike peon,driveretc.werearrested,mockeryofinvestigation,richpeople

JUDG.10/11

26

havetobeleftout,poorpersonshavebeenarrested,statementsare recorded in the year 2003, investigation carried out only as an eye wash to the public at large, the execution who brought order and documents and also gave the documents have been left and not consideredasaccused,butpooremployeeslikepeon,driveretc.have been made as an accused. The other officers are also accused of conspiracywithTelgi,theinvestigationwasfalseisapparentsomuch sothataccusedwerefalselyimplicatedinKurlacase.theevidenceof Metro hotel does not establish any offence. No stamps have been recoveredoranyincriminatingarticleshavebeenrecoveredfromany oftheseaccused.Fromtheevidenceofstaffonlyonedoesnotsuggest conspiracy. IfchargesheetisbelievedthattheFIRisfalseasthese personsnamedasanaccused,ifFIRisbelievedthenthechargesheet isfalse.ItamountstopunishmentofPeterforactsofPan.Thereisno directevidence,thereisnocircumstantialevidence.Theprosecution hasreliedupontheevidenceofaccomplicesviz.Mopalwarandhence isnotreliable.Thereisnoevidenceagainsttheseaccusedandtheybe acquitted. Considering these circumstances, he submitted that even fromtheacceptingoftheevidenceoftheprosecution,nocaseagainst

JUDG.10/11

27

theaccusedhasbeenmadeoutandhence,theybeacquitted. 23. AlsoperusedthewrittenargumentsasfiledbyShriJainon

behalfofaccusedandalsoheardaccusedM.DullanwarandA2Shaikh inperson.Alsoperusedthewrittenargumentsandrepliesfiledbythe respectiveparties. 24. From the record, Telgi has pleaded guilty. The other

accused withdrew their plea of guilt and stated that it was under extraneous circumstances. Having considered these facts and circumstances,itisseenthatthepleaofguiltisenteredbysomeofthe accusedwasnotfreefromextraneouscircumstances.Itisseenthatthe other accused besides No 1 had pleaded guilty as they were languishing in jail for a considerable time. Considering these circumstances and various applications of pleading of guilty, these circumstances stand highlighted. Thus, considering all these circumstances, apparently, one cannot say that the plea was made willingly or voluntarily. Moreover, the plea was recorded after the entireevidenceandstatementsu/s.313ofCr.P .C.wasrecorded.Inall theargumentsandcontentionsraisedandinthestatementsu/s.313, the accused have pleaded not guilty. Thus, considering these

JUDG.10/11

28

circumstances,asthepleabyotheraccusedexist,,Iamnotinclinedto acceptanypleasofguiltofotheraccusedandproceedtodecidethe caseonmerit. Thiscaseisuniqueinmanyways. 1.Theinvestigationiscarriedoutoftheoffenceby4differentagencies, Police,DCBCID,SITandCBI 2.Thefirstinvestigationofficerisarrayedinthiscaseasanaccused. 3.Someoftheinvestigatingofficershavebeenarrayedasaccusedin MCOCcaseinPuneasaccompliceofaccusedno1. 4.Thebetterpartofinvestigationisafteraperiodof8yearsofoffence. 5.Thecaseswereclubbedforcommonevidence,butseparateevidence wasledineachofthethreecases. Consideringallthesecircumstancesandonperusaloftheevidenceon recordandthedocumentaryevidenceonrecordandwrittenaswellas oralsubmissionsoftheparties,someissuesviz.legalpointshavebeen raised. Theselegalissuescanbeexaminedbyacceptingthecharge sheetandrecordasitis.Hence,Ifeltitappropriatetoconsiderthese legal issues first then the facts of the case which I shall consider separatelyhereinafter.

JUDG.10/11

29

Thevariouslegalissuesraisedarethatof 1.limitation 2.beingbarredbySection161oftheBombayPoliceAct. 3.No cognizance have been taken of the offences as entire trial has beenvitiated, 4.misjoinderofthetrialoftheInvestigatingofficerwithotheraccused persons, 5.misjoinderofchargespertainingtoconfession,clubbingofcases, 6.allegedfraudbythespecialpublicprosecutor,investigatingofficer. 25. FollowingpointsariseformyconsiderationandIanswer

thesameasunderforthereasonsstatedhereinafter: POINTS FINDING S 1.Whetherthetrialisbarredinviewofa.provisionsofSec. 161oftheBombayPoliceActand b.u/s.468oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure? 2. Whether there is no cognizance taken and hence, the NO entiretrialstandsvitiated? 3.Whetherthetrialisvitiatedbecauseofmisjoinderofthe No differenttrialsofdifferentaccusedtogether? No

JUDG.10/11 POINTS

30 FINDING S

4.Whetherthereismisjoinderofcharges?

No

5. Whether any fraud has been played by the public No prosecutorand/orI.O.soastovitiatethetrial? 6.WhetherthisCourtwas empoweredtoconductthetrial yes inviewofthetransferofthecaseduringthecourseoftrial? 7.Whethertheorderofsanctionaspassedu/s.197ofthe Yes Cr.P .C.isLegalandcorrect? 8. Whether the sanction granted under the provisions of No BombayStampsActislegalandvalid? 9.WhetherthesanctionundertheprovisionsofP .C.Actis Yes legalandvalid? 10. Whethertheprosecutionestablishesthatthe Yes

stampsarecounterfeit? 11.Whethertheprosecutionestablishesthatthereceipts Yes ofGSOasissuedbyTelgiarecounterfeit? 12.Whetherprosecutionestablishescriminalconspiracyto Yes dealingincounterfeitstampsofaccusednos1to9 13.WhetherprosecutionestablishesthatAccusedno10has Yes committedactofmisconduct? 14.Whetherprosecutionestablishesthataccusedno10did No saidactsinconspiracyandinabetmentoftheoffencesof

JUDG.10/11 POINTS

31 FINDING S

counterfeiting? 15.Whethertheaccusedhavecommittedanyoffence? 16.Whatorder? Pointno1(a): 26. Itisnotindisputethattheallegedincidentofforgeryhave As per final order As per final order

taken place in the year 19941995 and that offences came to be registered accordingly on the complaint of Mr. Mopalwar, the SuperintendentofStamps.Itisfurthernotdisputedthatsubsequently theHon'bleHighCourtpassedanordertoexaminetheinvolvement andculpabilityofthepoliceofficersandotherpersonsinacriminalPIL beforeitviz.CriminalWritPetitionNo.865/2003.Itisnotindispute thattheinvestigatingofficersarefacingchargesunderSections218, 221oftheIPCalongwithSection13(1)(d)punishableunderSection 13(2)ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct. Thisobjectionistakenby thepoliceofficerwhoisaccusedinthepresentcase.Thecontentionof theaccusedistwofold; (i)inviewoftheprovisionsofSection468oftheCr.P .C.and (ii)Sec.161oftheBombayPoliceAct.

JUDG.10/11

32

IshalldealwithSection468ofCr.P .C..Theaccusedarechargedwith offence primarily u/s. 218 and 221 of IPC. The accused are also charged u/s. 109, 120B of IPC for entering into a conspiracy in facilitatingtheoffence. Sec.218withispunishablewithmaximum punishmentofthreeyearsandSec.221withmaximumpunishmentof threeyears.Section468oftheCodeofCr.P .C.contemplatesthatthe periodof limitationshall bethreeyearsif the offence is punishable withimprisonmentforthetermexceedingoneyearbutnotexceeding threeyears. Subsection3ofSection468contemplatesthattheperiodoflimitation inrelationtooffenceswhichmaybetriedtogethershallbedetermined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishmentorasthecasemaybethemostseverepunishment. The presentofficersarealsobeingtriedforoffencepunishableu/s.13(2) ofP .C.Actforwhichpunishmentissevenyearsandmore. Itisnot controvertedthatSec.217,218and221canbetriedtogetherwith Sec.13(2)ofP .C.Act. Thereissomegrievanceraisedofjoinderof charges of counterfeiting as contemplated u/s. 256, 258, 259, 268, 262, 418, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Be that may be,

JUDG.10/11

33

consideringthefactthatSec.13(2)ofP .C.Acthasbeenincorporated whichprovidespunishmentuptosevenyears,Sec.3ofSection468 would come into play and hence, there would be no bar as contemplatedu/s.468forthesaidtrial. Even otherwise, on perusal of Section 469, the period of limitation shall commence (a) from the date of offence and (b) when the commissionofoffencewasnotknowntothepersonortothepolice officerfromthedateofsuchknowledge.Muchstresswasledonthis date of knowledge. In all three cases, commonly known as Telgi Stamp Scam cases, the alleged omissions or commissions were forwardedtothesuperiorofficersincludingACP ,PI,PI(Crime),Sr.P .I. etc. Itisalsoevidentfromtheevidenceonrecordthatstarquestion was asked in the Legislative Assembly and in pursuance of such question asked, the DCP called the said investigating officers and viewedthecasediaryandotherdetailsbasedonwhichtheomissions andcommissionsarealleged.Itiscontendedthattheallegeddateof commissionofoffenceu/s.221wouldbethedateofpassingoforder bytheSessionsCourton31.10.1995andalsoorderpassedbyHon'ble HighCourtdated1.12.1995inthebailapplicationsbeforeit. The

JUDG.10/11

34

LAQwasaskedintheDecember1995. Thus,itiscontendedthatall thefactspertainingtotheallegedoffencewerewithintheknowledge oftheofficersandhence,commissionoftheoffencewasknowntothe higherofficersviz.thepoliceofficerswaybackintheyear1995.Thus, according to the learned counsel for the accused police officer Mr. Bagaria,hecontendedthateventhenbytakingthemostlenientview, thedateofLAQwouldbethedateofcommencementofknowledge. There is basic fallacy in the argument of Mr. Bagaria. The law contemplates not only knowledge of facts but knowledge about the commissionoftheoffence.Onehastoconsiderthiswithprovisionsof Sec.319ofCodeofCr.P Inthiscase,thefactsareknown,butthe .C someoftheaccusedwereaddedsubsequently. Thus,knowledgeof factswouldnotbeimportant,butwhatisimportantisknowledgeof commission of the offence. The knowledge of commission of the offencewouldbeapparentwhentheinvestigationwascarriedoutin pursuance of the order dated 4th September 2003 by the Hon'ble BombayHighCourtinCriminalWritPetitionNo.865/2003. Thus,if we consider this date, there would not be any bar u/s. 468 for commencementofsuchtrial.

JUDG.10/11 27.

35

Thus,fromtheabovecircumstance,baru/s.468wouldnot

beapplicableasthedateofcommencementwillbe4.9.2003andso alsoSec.468wouldnotbeapplicableastheoffenceistriedalongwith Sec.13(2)ofP .C.Actwhichcontemplatespunishmentofsevenyears. Pointno1(b) 28. Nowweshallconsiderthebaru/s.161ofB.P .Act. Sec.

161 of B.P Act contemplates that no criminal prosecution will be . proceededagainstapoliceofficeriftheactisdoneundercolourorin excessofanydutyorauthorityasaforesaidiftheprosecutionisnot initiatedwithinsixmonthsfromthedateoftheactcomplainedof,and ifsanctionisobtainedwithintwoyearsfromthedateofoffence.The prosecution contended that similar view as contemplated u/s. 469 regardingknowledgeshouldbeconsideredinthiscase. Admittedly, fromthedateofoffence,whichisintheyear1995andinitiationof proceedingsintheyear2003isbeyondtheperiodoflimitationoftwo years as contemplated u/s. 161, but one has to also consider two aspectsinthisregardviz.whethertheactsoromissionscanbesaidto beunderthecolourofdutyandsecondlywhetherthedateofoffenceis thedatewhentheallegedactswerecommittedorsomedifferentdate

JUDG.10/11

36

canbereckonedforthepurposeofSec161ofBombayPoliceAct.The accusedhasrelieduponnumberofrulingsinthisregardwhichIshall first consider beforeembarking uponthe rulings of the prosecution. The accused has relied upon the ruling of K.K. Patel Vs. State of Gujaratreportedin2000Cri.L.J.4592inwhichtheallegationwas thatthepoliceofficerwasarrestedbypreparingfalsestatementand documents.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaheldthatthereisno scopeforcontendingthattheoffenceallegedwouldnotfallwithinthe purviewofactsdoneunderthecolourorinexcessofdutyorauthority. ItisinthiscircumstancethattheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaheld thatprovisionsofSec.161wouldbeapplicable. Healsoreliedupon the case of Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore reportedinAIR1963SupremeCourt849.Inthesaidcase,accused wascaughtwith15packetsofGanjawhenthepoliceofficerprepared falsepanchanamashowing9packetsofGanjaandalsoshowingthat circumstanceswhichneverdidhappen.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtof Indiaheldthattheoffenceascontemplatedu/s.161oftheBombay PoliceActincludesoffenceunderthePenalCodealso. TheHon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiaalsoexplainedtheexpressionundercolourof

JUDG.10/11

37

dutyoroffenceandcametotheconclusionthatundercolourofduty impliesiftheactsweredoneundercolourofdutyimposeduponhim bythePoliceAct.Thus,consideringthesecircumstances,theSupreme Court of India held that act of preparing of such false panchanama camewithinthepurviewofunderthecolourofdutyandhence,held theprosecutiontobenotmaintainablebeyondtheperiodoflimitation. InthecaseofSumerChandv.UnionofIndiareportedin1993CRI. L.J.3531, theactofprosecutionandfilingchargesheetbytheI.O. wasconsideredtobeundercolourofdutyandparamateriaprovisions ofSec.140oftheDelhiPoliceActwereconsideredinthisregard.In thecaseofH.N.Rishbudv.StateofDelhireportedinAIR1955S.C. 196whereinithasbeenheldthatproperprocedureshouldbefollowed and investigation should be done by proper authority and non compliancethereofwouldvitiatethetrialandsoalsorelieduponthe ruling of Atmaram Ghosale and others vs. State reported in 1965(1)Cri.L.J.18 whereinithasbeenheldthattheProsecution underotherActsandPenalCodearealsoincludedunderthepurview of Section 161 of Bombay Police Act. In the case of Kamlabai Malkarjunappa and others v. State of Maharashtra reported in

JUDG.10/11

38

1978Mh.L.J.252 whereinithasbeenheldthattheseizureofthe vehiclebyapoliceofficerwhenthedriverwasunabletosatisfythathe hadvalidlicenceand/orappropriatedocumentwasheldtobeunder colour of duty. He further relied upon the ruling of State of Maharashtra vs. Chander Kant reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court148 whereintheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaheldthatthe word'act'extendstoillegalomissionsalso.Hefurtherrelieduponthe rulingofSharifbaiMehmoobvs.AbdulRazakreportedinAIR1961 BOMBAY42whereinithasbeenheldthattheperiodofstartingpoint oflimitationu/s.161ofB.P .Actwouldbethedateofoffence. He further relied upon the ruling of Narayan Hari Tarkhande v. YeshwantRaojiNaikreportedinAIR1928Bombay352,whereinit hasbeenheldthatundercolourofdutyorinofficialcapacityincluded theactofpoliceofficer,theassaultofbatterycanbestatedtobeunder theactunderthecolourofduty.TheHon'bleHighCourtinreference answeredthatallegedactofassaultcannotbesaidtobeunderthe colourofduty.FurtherreliedupontherulingofSatishPalasdekarvs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1999 Volume 1 Mh. L.J. 204 whereinithasbeenheldthatassaultofuseofforcewhenincustody.

JUDG.10/11

39

Hence, facts and circumstances of the case to be barred under the provisionsofSec.161oftheB.P .Act. 29. As against this, the learned prosecutor Mr. Gharat has

relieduponrulingof Shubhnathvs.StateofU.P .reportedin1997, Volume5,SCC326whereintheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas held thatwhenthepublic servant commitsoffenceoffabricationof record, misappropriation of public funds, it cannot be said to be in dischargeofhisofficialdutiesandunderthepurviewofcolourofduty. He also relied upon ruling of Sumer Chand vs. Union of India reportedin1994Volume1SCC64whereinithasbeenheldthatacts ofconfinement,assaultingetc.arenotactsdoneunderthecolourof dutyorauthorityandthesaidactshadnoreasonableconnectionor nexustothedutyorauthorityimposed.Healsorelieduponthecase of H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Maharashtra as relied upon by the accused.HefurtherrelieduponthecaseStateofMaharashtravs.M. reported in AIR 1966 SCC 1783 wherein it has been held that acceptanceofbribeandpreparationoffalsedocumentstoassistthe accusedwouldnotfallunderthecolourofduty.TheHon'bleSupreme Court of India has held that unless there is reasonable connection

JUDG.10/11

40

betweentheactcomplainedofandduty,itcannotbesaidthattheact wasdonebytheaccusedofficerunderthecolourofhisduties. The State of Bihar vs. P . Sharma reported in AIR 1991 SC 1260 .P wherein, while consideringthe act in discharge of duty, it hasbeen held that the act complained of should be directly and inexplicably connectedwiththeofficialdutyandthereshouldbesomereasonable connection between the duty and act complained of. The Hon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiaalsoheldthatitisnopartofapublicservantto enter into a conspiracy to fabricate the record, falsify the count, commit fraud or misappropriation or demand or acceptance illegal gratificationthoughtheexerciseofpowergivesthemanoccasionto commitsuchoffence. 30. Thus,consideringtheaboverulings,thereissomeforcein

thecontentionofthelearnedcounselfortheaccusedthatactsofthe investigatingofficersaccusedinthiscasewhoarepoliceofficersare beingofpoliceofficersascontemplatedu/s.161oftheB.P .Act.Itcan alsobestatedthattheomissionsandcommissionsasallegedtosome extentarerelatedtothedutiesoftheconcernedpoliceofficer.Theact contemplatedu/s.161alsoincludesomissionashasbeenheldinthe

JUDG.10/11

41

caseofN.KaleVs.B.T.reportedin2008(Supplementary)Bombay C.R.161whichisfollowedthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtof IndiainthecaseofRakeshKumarVs.StateofBiharreportedinAIR 2006SC820. Ashasbeenpointedoutinvariousrulings,actsalso includesomission. ThecontentionsashasbeenraisedhasbeenconsideredbytheFull Benchdecisionin thecase of NarayanHarireported inAIR1928 Bombay 352 wherein the Hon'ble High Court way back in 1928 definesandinterpretswhatisundercolourofdutiesThedefinitionin the term under colour of duty and other acts can be made firstly whether he was doing in course of his public duties and secondly whetheractwasdonewhileperforminghisdutyforexampleifforceis usedandinjuryiscausedwhenresistancearises,itwouldfallduring performinghisofficialduty,butifthesameofficercausesinjurytoa personwhennotdoingsuchdutyoracts,itmaynotbefallwithinthe purviewofofficialduty.Thus,thesameactofassaultwillbeprotected if performed during official duty, but will not be protected if not performedwhilecommittingofficialduty.Theotheraspectiswhether the act oromission can be saidtohave been done in pursuance of

JUDG.10/11

42

official duties. The case of Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur reportedinAIR1963SupremeCourt849 hasbeenconsideredand distinguishedbytheHon'bleS.C.ofIndiainthecaseofStateofBihar vs.P .Shramareportedin1991. .P AlthoughinthecaseofVirupaxappaVeerappaKadampur,preparation offalsedocumentviz.panchanamawasconsideredtobewithinthe purviewofduties,onehastoconsideriftheactcomplainedofwould fallwithinsuchcolourofdutyasalleged.Theallegationsinthepresent casepertaintoomissionviz. (a)notcarriedoutproperinvestigation (b)notobeyingtheordersofthesuperiors, (c)notarrestingtheaccusedorinvestigatingtheaccused,assistingthe accusedinhisescape, (d)notcompletingtheinvestigationmuchsopromptlyandproperly (e) not forwarding the stamp seized to the FSL and/or other authoritiesforexaminationetc. ForthesakeofargumentforconsiderationtheissueofSec.161,the facts are not disputed that the Telgi used to sell and has sold counterfeit stamps and that complaint was lodged and investigation

JUDG.10/11

43

washandedoveroftheseoffencestotheaccusedI.O.Itisthecaseof accusedthatinvestigationwascarriedoutaspertheircapability,ability and intelligence which can be seen from the investigation and omissionsaspointedoutwasnotmadeout.Hence,accordingtothem, consideringthisaspect,itwascontendedthattheomissionsamountto actsunderthecolourofdutyastheypertaintoinvestigation. 31. At the outset, from the charges levelled and the charge

sheet,itisapparentthatthechargelevelledagainsttheI.O.pertainsto actsandomissionsallegedduringthecourseofinvestigation.Tothat extent, as stated above, the allegation relates to investigation. The aspectthatistobeseeniswhethertheactcomplainedofisconnected with the official duty or dereliction of official duty, there must be reasonable connection between the act complained of and in the dischargeofpurportedofficialduty. Theactoromissionmustbear sucharelationtothedutythattheaccusedcouldlayreasonablenexus between the offending act or omission and the duty, but not a pretendedorclaimthat hedidtheact(whichincludesomission)in thecourseofperformanceofhisduty.ThewordingsofSec.161ofthe B.P .Actcontemplatesactdoneunderthecolourorinexcessofsuch

JUDG.10/11

44

duty. The act done into or omissions are done under colour or in excessofsuchduty.Thus,omissionsshouldbeinfurtheranceofsuch duty. 32. Fromtheallegedallegationsmade,theomissionspertainto

preparationoffalsedocuments,asstatedearlierandmoreparticularly statedinthechargeonecannotsaythatitwasduringthecourseof officialdutythatallegedfabricatedpanchanamawaspreparedandthe samewouldcertainlybepreparedwithinthepurviewofcolourofduty asheldinthecaseofP .Sharma.Similarly,onecannotsaythatthe .P alleged act of not arresting and aiding and assisting an accused to escapethedueprocessoflawwouldfallwithinanyofficialpurviewof duty.Evenotherwise,evenduringthecourseofinvestigation,lackof properexaminationoftheseizedarticlesalsowillnotfallwithinany courseofofficialdutiesorcolourofsuchduty.Colourofdutyimplies thatthesaidactcanbesaidtobethedutyofthesaidofficerunderthe act or has imposed by any law. Permitting the accused to escape, preparationoffalsedocuments,nonpreparationofdocumentswould notinanycircumstancebewithinthescopeofanambitofcolourof duty.ThejudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainStateof

JUDG.10/11

45

Biharvs.P .SharmaandoftheFullBenchoftheHon'bleHighCourt .P ofBombay inthecaseofNarayanHarivs.YeshwantNaikwouldbe squarely applicable to the alleged facts and circumstances of the presentcase.AsheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,itcannot be a part of the duty of a public servant to enter into conspiracy, fabricaterecord,falsifythecount,commitfraudormisappropriationor demandandacceptanceofillegalgratificationsoalsoonecanaddthat ithasnopartofdutyofapublicservanttodocriminalmisconductas contemplated underthe P Act. Theact of definition of criminal .C. misconduct itself highlights that these acts will not fall under the purview of official duties or relating to duty of a public officer. Considering these circumstances, the acts and omissions of the concerned police officers who are accused in this case would not amounttoactsoromissionsandactsdoneunderthecolourofofficial duty. Astheactsfallbeyondthepurviewofundercolourofofficial duty,thebariscontemplatedu/s.161oftheB.P .Actwillnotapply. Hence,Ianswerthepointaccordingly. Pointno2: 33. Another important issue that was raised was regarding

JUDG.10/11

46

cognizance.Itisanadmittedfactthatinitiallytheinvestigationinall thethreecaseswascarriedoutbytherespectivepolicestations,Crime Branch, CB,CID. ThereafterafterTelgricametobearrested,itwas shiftedtoDCB. BytheorderoftheHon'bleBombayHighCourt,a specialinvestigationteamwasformedandinvestigationwashanded overtosuchspecialinvestigationteamviz.S.I.T.Subsequently,bythe order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the investigation was transferredtoCBI. Inallthesecases,thechargesheetsagainstTelgi andsomeofhisemployeesandprivatepersonswasinitiallyfiledby the DCB,CID. After the SIT wasformed, the Hon'ble Bombay High Courtdirectedinvestigationofallegedculpabilityofthepoliceofficers. Inpursuancethereto,theSITcarriedoutinvestigationandfoundthat there was sufficient evidence against the police officers who had investigated the offence earlier. The SIT filed chargesheet against these police officers before the Learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thereafter committed the trial to the Court of Sessions. Duringthisperiod,i.e.afterfilingofthechargesheetandbeforethe trialstarted,theinvestigationwashandedovertotheSIT.Theother chargesheets which are filed before the learned Magistrate, in the

JUDG.10/11

47

meanwhile were also committed and all these chargesheets were clubbedtogether. Itispertinenttonotethaton18.11.2005,thefact that such cognizance was not taken, was noted and the court took cognizanceinboththesecases.Thus,onecanseethatthereisassuch no material irregularity or prejudice caused to the accused. Cognizance in fact has been taken. It is not the case that no cognizancehasbeentakenasisseenfromtherecordandintheorder sheet.Thus,thecontentionthatnocognizancehasbeentakenisnot wellfoundedonconsideringtheRoznamawhichisonrecord. Itis necessary to point out that in this matter the investigation was transferredfromoneinvestigatingagencytoanotherinviewofvarious judicialpronouncementsanddirections. Thematterwasofaserious natureandtheinvestigationwaslastlycarriedoutnearly8to9years havepassedfromtheincident.Onehastoconsiderwhatdoesitmean bycognizanceandhowfarthisirregularityisfatal. Aspointedout earlier,cognizancehasnotbeendefinedundertheCriminalProcedure Code.ItisunderstoodtobethefirstdateonwhichtheCourtapplies its mind. It is also well settled principle that cognizance is of the offenceandnotoftheaccused. Itisalsowellsettledprinciplethat

JUDG.10/11

48

whatiscommittedandwhatistakencognizanceoftheoffence. Itis alsonotindisputethatthiscourtisaSpecialCourtestablishedand dulynotifiedasSpecialCourtforhearingcasesunderPreventionof CorruptionAct.Aspointedoutearlier,thisisalsoaSpecialCourtand asitdealswithoffencesunderPreventionofCorruptionAct,itisalso empowered to the cases under the P Act which are of the same .C. transactionasthatoftheoffencescontemplatedunderP .C.Act. Itis also material to point out here that the I.O. of the SIT had not contemplated action against the arrayed police officers under the provisions of P Act. It is also necessary to point out that on .C. 15.4.2004,forthefirsttime,theprosecutormadeareferencetothe Courtandseektimetosanctiontheprosecution. Evenatthattime, there wouldhaveprayermadefor addingtheprovisionsofP Act .C. against the police officer. As pointed out earlier, the committal proceedings and the cognizance is of the fact which constitute an offencewhenitisnotspecializedorseparatedwithreferencetoan accusedpersonoraparticularsectionorprovision. Ifweconsidered alltheseaspects,theMagistratehadtakencognizanceofthefactwhich constitutedtheoffenceallegedlycommittedbythesaidinvestigating

JUDG.10/11

49

officersandhadcommittedthetrialtotheCourtofSessions. Thus, additionofadditionalprovisionsbywhichtheaccusedhavecommitted theoffenceisseenfromthesaidfactcancertainlybeaddedinto.As alreadypointedoutearlier,itistheprerogativeoftheCourttoframe chargesundertheprovisionsitfeelfitinthecircumstancesofthecase. It is an judicial act and decision of framing a charge under the particular section. Therefore, if the provisions of P Act are not .C. appliedorindicatedtotheinvestigatingmachinery,itdoesnotimply thatthesameisboundtonottoconsidertheseprovisions.Eveninsuch circumstances,theCourtisamplyempoweredtoframechargesand takeappropriatestepsaccordingly. ThisCourtbeingaSpecialCourt notified under the P Act, could certainly accept the action of .C. initiationofproceedingsundertheP .C.Act.Theentireexerciseoftrial istohaveanfairtrial.Itisafairtrialwhichisprosecutingagencyand representedthesocietyandalsotheaccused.Thetrialcannotbelost sight in favour of the accused. This fair trial as such and not particularly in favour of the accused. It does not imply that if provisions of P Act are added, there would be prejudiced to the .C. accused. The provisions of law of the above procedural protection

JUDG.10/11

50

giventotheaccusedaretoprotecthisrightoffairtrial.Itisapparent that just because such irregularities exist, the trial can be vitiated. Mere existence of such irregularity will not always prejudiced the accused. Something more is to be shown than such irregularity. Accordingtome,takingcognizanceimpliesapplicationofmind.Inthe presentcase,atthetimeofframingofcharge,theSpecialCourthad applied its mind. Thus, on 18.11.2005, by taking cognizance specificallyevensuchirregularitycametobesetaside. Nothinghas been pointed out as to how this irregularity has caused serious prejudice or any prejudice to the accused. The framing of charge, recording of evidence, giving opportunity of crossexamination, complies with various protection given to the accused have been compliedwith duringthe course of trial. Thus, mere additionof a sectionorincludinganaccusedforoffencepunishableundertheP .C. Actwillnotinanywayprejudicetheaccused.Thus,consideringthese circumstances,firstlythecontentionthatnocognizancewastakenis erroneous and secondly if any such irregularity in taking of such cognizance is a mere irregularity which stands cured by taking cognizance on 18.11.2005. Considering this circumstance, this

JUDG.10/11

51

objectionofnottakingcognizancedoesnotholdanywater.Moreover, theaccusedhadparticipatedinthetrialwillfullythroughoutandhas been given full opportunity to contest the trial. Hence, in such circumstances,noprejudiceiscaused.Theobjectiontakenisonlyfor thesakeofobjectionandcannotbesustained. Moresoever,itdoes notvitiatethetrialunderanycircumstances. Pointno3&4: 34. It is the contention of the accused viz. the investigating

officers that no fair trial of the accusedinvestigating officers. The groundofabsenceoffairtrialhasbeenraisedonlybytheaccused investigating officers and any reference hereinafter relating to this issueonlypertainstothesaidaccusedinvestigatingofficers. 35. Thegroundofviolationoffairtrialhasbeentakenupon

the ground that the officers are charged with Section 109 of IPC pertaining to abetment and that abetment is not attracted in the presentcases.Itisfurthercontendedthattheallegedabetmentisofa futureoffence. TheI.Os.arearraignedasanaccusedalongwiththe main offenders who have committed the offence which vitiate trial. Thereismisjoinderoftrial,misjoinderofcharges.Thedefenceofthe

JUDG.10/11

52

accusedisvitiated.Joinderofchargesofabetmentu/s.109forfuture offencesandSections218and221ofIPCalongwithoffenceunderthe P Act cannot prove misjoinder of charges and the entire trial is .C. vitiated. Itisalsofurthercontendedthatthefairtrialhasnotbeen giventotheaccusedbyclubbingthethreecasesviz.111/04,112/04 and10/2011andsoalsobynotclubbingtheMRAcasewiththesecases andhencethereisdenialoffairtrial.Itisfurthercontendedthatthe fraudhasbeencommittedbythepublicprosecutorandtheI.O. The public prosecutor has acted as persecutor and hence, the trial is vitiatedandthusthereisnofairtrial. 36. Thus,consideringtheabovecontentionasraised,onecan

saythatthegroundstakenofaremisjoinderoftheaccused,misjoinder ofcharges,clubbingofthecasesandfraudbythepublicprosecutor. 37. Ishallfirstdealwiththeclubbingofthecases.Theorder

of clubbing of the cases was passed on the application of the prosecution and the order was passed in M.A. No. 403/2005 dated 1.12.2005pertainingto111&11206.Thesaidorderwaschallenged beforetheHon'bleHighCourtofBombayinCriminalWritPetitionNo. 448/2005andthesamewasrejected.Consideringthesame,theissue

JUDG.10/11

53

of clubbing cannot be raised once again under these circumstances. Evenotherwise,fromtherecord,itisseenthattheevidenceinallthe three cases has been led separately. Even the charges are framed separately,Ihaveheardtheargumentsseparatelyandthejudgments are given separately. On perusal of the entire record, although technically, all the three trials were clubbed, they were not amalgamated, but they were heard together. Even otherwise as clubbingofthesecaseshasnotbeenshowntobeprejudicialtoany interesttotheaccusedinvestigatingofficer,hehasbeengrantedfull and fair opportunity to defend himself without any hindrance or objection. Consideringthisaspect,itcannotbesaidthatclubbingof thesecaseswouldbeprejudicialoradverseoraffectingfairtrialofthe accused.Thereisanotherorderofmerger/clubbingofthecaseswhich isbasicallythegrievanceoftheaccused. Itisnecessarytopointout that in these cases, initially the investigation was with the accused investigatingofficers.Subsequentlyitremainedwiththepolicestation withdifferentpoliceofficersthenDCBCID,thereafteritwastakenup bytheS.I.T.afterarrestoftheaccusedno.1Telgiandinpursuanceof thedirectionsoftheHon'bleHighCourtofBombayinthewritpetition

JUDG.10/11

54

bearing No. 865/2003. Thereafter the investigation came to be transferredtotheC.B.I.inpursuanceofthedirectionsoftheHon'ble Supreme Court of India. During the course of investigation by the S.I.T., chargesheet came to be filed against other accused. Subsequentlyunderfurtherinvestigation,chargesheetcametobefiled against the investigating officers. Subsequent thereto, the CBI filed chargesheetagainstalltheaccused.Itisafterthefilingofthecharge sheet by the CBI, the statement was made of completion of investigationbytheCBI. Itisinthesecircumstancesthattheearlier chargesheetfiledbyS.I.T.wasmergedoramalgamatedinthecharge sheetfiledbytheCBIasperthefinalreportascontemplatedu/s.173 ofCr.P .C.Thisgroundandgroundofmisjoinderoftrialisoneandthe same. 38. As against this,itisthe caseoftheprosecution thatthe

accusedinvestigatingofficerischargedoffacilitatingthefutureoffence andhence,hecanbetriedalongwithotheraccusedinthesametrial. ItisfurthercontendedbytheprosecutionthattheCodeofCr.P .C. providesforjoinderofoffenceandchargestogetherinasingletrial. 39. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedheavilyrelieduponthe

JUDG.10/11

55

rulingof(i) SohanSinghVs.TheCrownreportedin1923Lahore 394,(ii)EmperorVs.JethalalHarlochandreportedinVolume7, BLR,527,(iii)GulMohomedSirkarVs.CheharcMandalreported inVolume3Cr.L.J.Reports141,(v)JohanSubranaVs.Emperor reportedinVolume3,Cr.L.J.Reporter111,(vi)ShapurjiSorabji Vs.EmperorreportedinAIR1936Bombay154,(vii)Chakrakodi Sharma Vs. Emperor 1922, Madras, 435, (viii) Ramchandra SawkarVs.EmperorreportedinAIR1939,129.Furtherreliedupon therulingof(ix)LaxmanBapuSonarVs.StateofGujaratreported in2004,Cr.L.J.2229.AIR32,Lahore,486.Furtherrelieduponthe casesof(x) BalbirVs.StateofHariyanareportedin2000SC11, (xi) Birichh Bhuian Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1963, SC 1120, (xii) K.L. Srivastava Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1974,Cr.L.J.518,(xiii)StateofGujaratVs.Suryakantreportedin 1999Cr.L.J.821,(xiv)ShailendraKumarJainVs.StateofU.P . 1991,Cr.L.J.,2969. If we perused the entire gamut of judgments, the rulings which highlighted all the issues can be found in the case of Ramchandra SawkarreportedinAIR1939,Bombay,129andinAIR1963,Birichh

JUDG.10/11

56

Bhuianvs.StateofGujarat,SC1120. Ifweperusedtheothercase laws,theyaremore onthefactsonparticularcase. Inthecaseof RamchandraSawkar,theHon'bleHighCourtofBombayconsideredthe meaning of transaction. The Hon'ble High Court distinguished viz. continuity of action and common purpose. The expression 'same transaction'hasbeenjudiciallyinterpretedanditsignifiesrelatedto oneanotherinjointpurpose,orascauseandeffectorasprincipalor subsidiary acts as to denote one continuous and completed action. Whileconsideringthechargeofabetmentorconspiracy,thescopeof enquirysoastoembraceallactionsdoneingeneralconspiracytodo similaractextendingovernotonlytheperiodinvolvedinthechargeof abetment,butoveramuchlargerperiodanteriorandsubsequent.The Hon'bleHighCourtofBombayalsohasheldthatnecessityoffollowing the procedure relating to joinder of charges laiddown by law is obviously dictated by reasons of practical expediency and justice, namelytosimplifytheinquiryfromthepointofviewoftheaccused. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofBirichhBhuianvs. StateofGujarathasheldthatachargeisnotanaccusationmadeor informationgiveninabstractbutanaccusationmadeagainstaperson

JUDG.10/11

57

inrespectofanactcommittedoromittedinviolationofapenallaw forbiddingorcommandingit. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia also considered the effect of amendment to the then Cr.P by .C. amendingActof1955.Theamendmentismerelyparamateriatothe provisions in the present Cr.P wherein failure to or error in .C. misjoinderwillnotsolelyvitiatethetrialascontemplatedinSection 215oftheAct.Consideringtheseprovisions,whattheaccusedhasto showisthathewasprejudicedandthatitisanincurableirregularity orillegality. 40. Attheoutset,itistobeseenthattheI.Os.areallegedto

have committed offence punishable u/s. 109 of IPC. Whether the offenceu/s.109appliestofutureactornotwillbeconsideredwhile appreciatingtheevidenceonrecordandthefactsofthecase.Sufficeit tosaythat,atthismoment,wearenotconsideringthevalidityofthe charge or basis of the charge, but is considering joinder of charge and/ortrialwiththeotheraccusedandotheroffences.Althoughmuch washarpedupononvitiatingthetrialorinjusticeorfacingthetrial withtheotheraccusedintheoffencewhichwasbeinginvestigatedby theaccusedinvestigatingofficers.Nothinghasbeenpointedoutasto

JUDG.10/11

58

how such trial has been unfair or such alleged irregularity or misjoinder of trial has adversely affected in defence. In fact, if we consideritinrealterms,thattheaccusedhaveinasensebenefitedin their defences instead of it being affected adversely. The alleged omissionandcommissionoftheinvestigatingofficersarebeingusedas defenceorlacunaeintheprosecutioncasebytheotheraccused. 41. NeedlesstosaythataspertheprovisionsoftheCr.P .C.u/s.

219ofCrC,offencesofthesamekind,whentheyarepunishablewith thesameamountofpunishmentcanbetriedinonetrialiftheseriesof acts are connected together to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same accused, he can be charged in one trial for such offence so also u/s. 223 CrPC , the persons accused of the same offence in the course of the same transactioncanbetriedtogether.Clause(b)ofSec.223contemplates thatpersonsaccusedofanoffenceandpersonsaccusedofabetment of,orattempttocommit,suchoffencecanbetriedtogether. Thus,inthepresentcase,onecanseethattheinvestigatingofficers investigatedthesaidoffenceallegedlyinalaxmanner. Itisalleged that as per Section 109, by committing said act, the accused have

JUDG.10/11

59

facilitated the commission of an similar further offences by Telgi as statedinthecharge. Forabetment,thedefinitionrelieduponisofexplanationoftheActto Section 107 of facilitation of commission of act. Whether this explanationwouldbeapplicableisbeingconsideredsubsequently,but at this stage, one can say that the entire transaction of allegedly committinglaxinvestigationandpermittingaccusedno.1toescapeas alleged by the prosecution may fall within the four corners of facilitation of such offence. Thus, as the charge levied against the accusedisofabetment,readingprovisionsofSection223subsection2 ofCr.P .C.,therecouldnothavebeenanymisjoinderoftrialofpresent accusedwithotheraccusedormisjoinderofchargesofpresentaccused withotheraccusedoroffences. 42. Asregardsobjectionpertainingtotheoffenceu/s.218

221,itisclearthattheentireoffenceofpreparingandomittingtodo actasallegedleadingtoallegedlaxinvestigationcancertainlybesaid tobeactforbeingpartofsametransaction.Theactandomissionof lax investigation and omission as stated in the charge till escape of Telgicancertainlyformedpartofthesametransaction.

JUDG.10/11

60

This coupled with the provisions of the P Act viz. Section 4 sub .C. section3whichempowerstheSpecialJudgetotryanyoffencesalong with such offences which can be tried together. Section 13(1)(d) contemplatesthatthepublicservanthascommittedmisconductwhen ifbyabusinghisposition,obtainedforhimselforanyotherpersonany valuable things or pecuniary advantage. Thus, it is the case of prosecution that by permitting to Telgi to escape, there is alleged facilitation of him committing similar offences thereafter and thus, facilitation of pecuniary advantage to Telgi. Considering these circumstancesandtheprovisionsascontainedinSection4subsection 3oftheP .C.Actandvariousprovisionspertainingtochargesandtrial as contemplated u/s. 218 to 223, no illegality exist if trying the accusedjointlyforthesaidoffencealongwiththeotheraccused. Even otherwise, it has not been shown that by such joint trial or charges,thedefenceoftheaccusedhasbeenaffectedadverselyorthat theaccusedwasrestrainedinanymannerinraisinganydefencewhich hefeltso.Thejointtrialhasinfactfacilitatedthepurposeoftrialand expeditethetrialandalsoavoidedinconveniencetothewitnesses,and the partied to the trial , considering the number of witnesses and

JUDG.10/11

61

documentsinvolvedinthesecases.Itisnecessarytoconsiderthatthe procedurallawsaremadetofurtherjusticeandnotcausehindrancein trial. Thecaseof LaluPrasadYadavVs.CBIreportedinAIR2003 SC3838, theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiapermittedtheSpecial Judgetorecordevidenceinonecaseandmarkdocumentsinonecase andusethesameinothercasesalso. Thusconvenienceandjudicial expediency which can be achieved without sacrificing the rights of parties is of paramount importance . Considering these various circumstances, apparently there is no illegality in the misjoinder of chargeand/ormisjoinderoftrialoftheaccusedinvestigatingofficers withotheraccused.Hence,thisobjectionoftheaccusedI.Os.cannot beconsidered. Moreover,noprejudiceisshowntohavebeencaused totheaccusedinvestigatingofficers Pointno5: 43. Averydisturbingfeaturehasemergedduringthecourseof

thistrial.Itisnecessarytomentionthattheprosecutorandsoalsothe advocatesfortheaccusedareinfactareworkingtoassistthecourt. They only act as a liaison between the party viz. the state or the accusedandthecourt.Theyalsoassistthecourtintheunderstanding

JUDG.10/11

62

ofthecasefromdifferentfacetsandwithvariousprovisionsoflawand in highlighting as to how different provisions of law can be made applicableinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.Tosomeextent, itcouldbetruethattheprosecutionmainlytriestohighlightthecase oftheprosecutionandtheadvocateofaccusedtriestohighlightthe defence of the accused. These two activities help the court with comingtoaproperconclusionbasedonthefacts,understandingand applicationoffacts,interpretationoflaw,applicabilityoflawtoany casesinitscorrectsense.ItisallegedthattheprosecutorMr.Gharat waspersonallyinvolvedinthesaidmatterandnumberofrulingsin thisregardwere reliedupon. Itisalsooneofthegroundthatthe accused'srightoffairtrialhasbeenviolatedinthatregard. Atthe outset,oneofthecontentionraisedwasthattheprovisionsofP .C.Act werenotmadeapplicableanditwasonlyattheinstanceofthepresent prosecutorthatthesanctioncametobeappliedforandgranted.This controversyhasbeenledtorestbytheorderoftheHon'bleHighCourt inCr.W.P .No.2476/2006dated25.7.2007.Itisnotindisputethatthe involvement of a police officer, if any, was considered as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and special investigation team

JUDG.10/11

63

came to be appointed accordingly. It is also not in dispute that Supreme Court of India also considered the circumstances and the seriousness of the charges and appointed CBI as the investigating agency.Inparagraph8oftheorderdated25.7.2007,theHon'bleHigh CourtofBombayhasheldthatitwasthedutyoftheprosecutorto invokesuchprovisionsoflawasaredisclosedfromthechargesheet andifsuchinvokingofact,P .C.Actistakenbytheprosecution,no exceptioncanbetaken.Itisnecessarytopointoutthatwhatisbeing filedisthechargesheet.Achargesheetcontainsbunchoffactswhich accordingtotheI.Os.pertaintotheincidentorincidentsorseriesof actinquestion.Itisinhisopinionthatfromthesaidseriesofactsor actthattheparticularoffenceismadeout.Ithastobenotedthatthis istheopinionoftheconcernedI.Os./statewhofilethechargesheet, maybewiththeassistanceofanypoliceprosecutor,legaladvisoretc. This opinionofthesaidinvestigatingofficercannotbesaidtobe a judicialfindingorajudicialdecisioninthisregard.Whensuchbunch offactsmadebeforethecourt,alwaysmandatorythecourtperuses thesaidchargesheetandonthebasisoffactscontainedinthecharge sheet,thechargesareframed.Itisnotonthebasisofsuchopinionor

JUDG.10/11

64

result arrived at by the I.Os. In case of warrant cases, Section 240 contemplatesframingofcharge.Itcontemplatesthatthechargeshall beframeduponconsideringthepolicereportanddocumentssentwith it. Evenwhatoffencehasbeenprimafacieallegedtobecommitted fromdocumentsislefttotheMagistrate.TheMagistratehastoform an opinion that accused has committed an offence on the basis of chargesheet.WhatoffenceistobedecidedbytheMagistrate?Even inthecaseofprovisionsofP .C.Act,itisnotnecessarythatjustbecause thechargesheetisfiledundertheprovisionsofP .C.Act,thatcharge underP .C.Actwouldfollow. Itisalsonotessentialthatjustbecause thechargeisframedbythecourtascontemplatedu/s.240inwarrant casesor228inSessionstriablecasesthatthesameremainorattains finality.UnderprovisionofSec.216,thecourtisempoweredtoalter charge.Thiscanbeeitherchargingwithahigheroffenceorcharging withaloweroffence.Thepowertoalterchargeisatanytimebefore judgment is pronounced. Thus, framing of charge is the sole prerogative of the court. It is in this decision making that the prosecutorandtheadvocateoftheaccusedassistthecourttoshowas to how and which offences are prima facie made out from the

JUDG.10/11

65

documentsinchargesheet. Aprosecutorisnotamerepostman. If thereareanyseriouslacunaeseenorsomedrawbacksseen,nothing preventstheprosecutorevenfromadmittingorconsideringthesaid drawbacksorflawsininvestigation.ThismayalsoresultintheI.Os. tryingtocollectfurtherevidenceandcarryoutfurtherinvestigationas contemplatedu/s.173(8)ofCr.P .C.Thus,therecouldbenofaultof the prosecutor to assist the court in coming to a conclusion as to whethertheprovisionsofP .C.Actaremadeavailable.Furtherifsuch provisions,accordingtotheprosecutionaremadeout,thereisnothing wrongtoseeksanctioninthisregard.Itisnecessarytopointoutthat theprovisionforsanctionofprosecutionisinfactaprotectiongivento the accused and not additional circumstance against the accused. Thus,infact,onecansaythattheaccusedwasgrantedanoppurtunity by asking for sanction outside the purview of the court, within his administrativehierarchypertainingtosanctionandhischarges. Itis not the case of the accused that the prosecutor/CBI forced the sanctioningauthoritytograntsanction.Thus,theactoftheprosecutor askingforsanctioncannotbesaidtobeprejudicialtotheaccusedor violativeofprinciplesoffairtrial.

JUDG.10/11

66

Theaccusedhavemadefollowingcontentioninthewrittenarguments: IftheseomissionsonthepartofShriGharatareintentional,lackof knowledge,lackofefficiency,lackofcompetencyorunderanyexcuse thensimilarbenefitshouldgiventoallthethreeaccusedand/orinthe alternate if the impressions are required to be drawn against the accused,assuggestedbyShriGharat,thensimilarinferenceisrequired tobedrawnagainstShriGharatthatinordertosaveRanedeliberately having full knowledge in which intentionally he has not examined thesewitnessesandwithheldthisdocumentfromthisHonbleCourtto safe Rane from the clutches of punishment which could have been awardedbythisHonbleCourt. Theprosecutorinreplymakesthefollowingaccusations: it is presumed that the accused police officer and the defence advocateMr.IshwariprasadBagariahavemadethesaidsubmissions withfullresponsibility.Thereforebothofthemhavemadethemselves liablefortheoffenceundersection199IPCforintentionallymaking falsesubmissionsinthewrittenargumentsreceivablebythetrialcourt forjudgingtheguiltoftheaccused........ MR. ISHWARIPRASAD BAGARIA, THE DEFENCE ADVOCATE FOR

JUDG.10/11

67

ACCUSEDPOLICEOFFICERSHASBEENBLINDEDBYREVENGEFUL ATTUTUDE BY INCLUDING THE PRESENT CONTENTS IN PARAGRAPHS NO. 7 AND 8 WHICH ARE PATENTLY FALSE AND DISHONEST MAKING HIMSELF CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER SECTION 199 IPC FOR MAKING FALSE SUBMISSIONS AND MISLEADING THE COURT. IN HIS BERSERK ATTITUDE HE HAS FORGOTTENHISDUTYASARESPONSBLEADVOCATEANDBEFORE ADVANCING THE PRESENT CONTENTIONS ON FALSE PREMISES DISHONESTLY UNDER ENTHUSIASM FOR CHEAP PUBLICITY HAD APPROACHED MEDIA WITH FALSE INFORMATION THAT HE HAS JOINED THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PRADIP GHARAT ASTHEACCUSEDINTHISCASE.ONSUCHQUIRRIESFROMTHE MEDIA TO THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AN APPLICATION HASBEENSUBMITTEDONRECORDOFTHISCOURTWHICHHAS NOTBEENPRESSEDTOHONOURTHEWORDOFTHISCOURTBUT, HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN AND FORMING PART OF THE RECORD.THECONTENTIONSINTHESAMEBETAKENASREPEATED HEREIN. THIS COURT ALSO BE PLEASED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PREVIOUS STRICTURES PASSED AGAINST

JUDG.10/11

68

ADVOCATEISHWARPRASADBAGARIABYYOURHONOURSHONBLE PREDECESSOR HHJ SHRIU. D.SALVI ( PRESENTLY THE HONBLE JUDGE MUMBAI HIGH COURT) AND OTHER APPLICATIONS SUBMITTEDBYMR.BAGARIAONRECORD.MR.BAGARIASTANDS EXPOSED THROUGH THE ALLEGATIONS WHICH HE HAD PREFERREDAGAINSTHHJSHRIU.D.SALVIWHICHEXPOSESHIS HABITTODOAWAYWITHPROSECUTORSANDJUDGESWHOCOME INHISWAYBYSUBMITTINGMISCHIEVOUSAPPLICATIONS.ACTION BE RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORSHRIPRADIPGHARATFORTHEDISHONESTYINNOT EXAMININGSANCTIONINGAUTHORITYIFTHISCOURTFINDSTHE SAID SUBMISSIONS TRUE BUT IF THE COURT FINDS THE SAME FALSE AS STATED IN THE INTRODUCTORY LINES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 199 IPC IS PRAYED FOR AGAINST ADVOCATE ISHWARIPRASAD BAGARIA SINCE HIS TYPE OF PRACTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE CURBED AND AGAINST ACCUSED POLICE OFFICER. One can certainly say that the act of mudslinging against the

JUDG.10/11

69

prosecutororagainsttheadvocatefortheaccusedshallleadthetrial nowhereandwouldneitherfurtherthecaseoftheprosecutionand/or caseoftheaccused.Althoughtheeffortwasmadebytheaccusedin tryingtomaketheprosecutorasoneoftheaccused,itseemsthatwild sensehasprevailedinnotmakingsuchanapplication,butitshortof the noble duty by which such allegations continued to exist in the submissionssoalsotheactoftheprosecutortocounterattackequally and prayed for contemptuous action against the advocate for the accusedisalsonotappreciatedbythiscourt.Ifthesetwopillarsofthe administration of justice fight amongst one another without appreciating the entire picture of supporting the administration of justice exist, it would not be far of when the entire administration systemwillcollapse.Thereisafinelineofdistinctionbetweenarguing andstressingonecontentionvehementlyandintryingtooverreach thesaidandmakeallegationsagainsttheotherside.Consideringthe same,boththereliefsofmakingactionagainsttheprosecutoraswell as advocate for the accused cannot be considered and rejected accordingly. Needless to say that any such act of the prosecutor or advocateofaccusedhasnotcausedprejudicetoeithersidemainlythe

JUDG.10/11

70

prosecutionoftheaccusedandhasnotaffectedinanysensethefree andfairtrial. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedrelieduponunreportedjudgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Babu Salve viz. in ConfirmationCaseNo.3/2008dated13.4.2010. Inthesaidcase, theHon'bleHIghCourthasheldthattheprosecutionmustensurethat aguiltypersondoesnotescapefromtheclutchesofpenallawandnot thateverytrialmustresultinconviction.Theprosecutionplaysavital role in assisting the trial Court so as to ensure that the trial is conductedfairlyandtransparentlyandaninnocentpersonisnotheld guilty.Thiswassobecausetheaccusedno.2wascitedasaprosecution witnessafterherstatementu/s.313wasrecorded.Fromthefactsand circumstances of the case, such anomaly or joint trial, clubbing of cases,requestingforsanctionorderfromtheI.O.cannotbeheldtobe false on the part of the prosecution so also this interpretation of Section 109 in facilitating the offences is inclusive recording of evidence in a particular manner, selection of appropriate witnesses cannotbesaidtobeactofthelearnedprosecutorunfairsoastovitiate fairtrial.Hence,Ianswerthepointaccordingly.

JUDG.10/11 Pointno6: 44.

71

From the record, it is seen that earlier the matter was

pending before my learned predecessor the then Hon'ble Judge Mr. U.D. Salvi. Thereafter on 4.7.2007, it is seen to be transferred to another Judge Mr. Indrale. I am naming the Judges because the controversyarisespertainingtothetransfer.OnperusalofRoznamain dated4.7.2007,theLdJudgeShriIndralediretsittobesentbackto thePjashenotNotifiedjudgeunderthePCAct,isseenthatthematter isagaintakenupbythethenJudgeMr.U.D.Salvithereafter. Itis contendedthatsuchtransferisillegalfightandhasresultedinvitiating oftrialasthepresentCourtcouldnothearorisnotempoweredto hear the matter as the case is not made over to the Court by the SessionsJudge.Inthisregard,theRoznamaofS.C.No.10/11isalso of importance. In case No. 111 and 112/04, no Roznama dated 4.7.2007isseenwhereasitisseenintheS.C.No.10/11. Fromthe perusalofthesaidRoznama,itisseenthatthenJudgeMr.Indralewas notanotifiedJudgeundertheprovisionsofP .C.Act. Thesamewas pointed out to the learned Judge. It is seen that subsequently the mattercametobeagainheardbyJudgeMr.U.D.Salvi. Theparties

JUDG.10/11

72

thereafter participated in the proceedings. The circumstances that transpiredbetween4thand5th,butthefactthatthepartiesthereafter participatedinthetrialandmerelytheentireevidencewasrecorded beforesubesquently,indicatesthatthepartiesknewthatJudgeMr. Indrale did not havepowerandinsuchcircumstances, anytransfer orderwasnotacteduponandthemattercontinuedtobewiththethen JudgeMr.U.D.Salvi,mypredecessorJudge. 45. Therulingsarecitedbythelearnedcounselfortheaccused

viz. State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 SC 2378 cannotbemadeapplicableinthepresentcircumstancesasitdoesnot pertaintotheNDPScase. Moreover,aspointedoutearlier,itisalso notthebasisofthecasesoalsothecaseofMolyVs.StateofKerala reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1384 wherein the trial before Special Court has been discussed. The provisions of SC and ST as is consideredinthecaseofMolyVs.StateofKeralaisentirelydifferent as the Special Court under the P Act exercised the original .C. jurisdiction. Asagainstthis,thecasereportedofStateofKarnataka Vs.MuniyallaAIR1985,SC470 wouldbesquarelyapplicable. In paragraph3,ithasbeenheldthateveniftheSixthAdditionalCity

JUDG.10/11

73

Civil&SessionsJudgetriedasessionscasewhichwasnotformally madeovertohim.Thetrialwouldbeinvalid,becauseinanyeventthe Sixth Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge would have inherent jurisdictiontotrytheSessionsCase. 46. EventheobjectionofthisCourthavingbeennojurisdiction

asthecaseisnotmadeoverbytheSessionsJudge,Gr.Mumbaiisalso notwellfoundedandthesameisrejected. Pointno7: 47. The prosecution in order to establish this sanction has

examined P 12 Deputy Secretary of the Home Department, .W. Government of Maharashtra. He has deposed that he perused the documentsandgrantedsanction.Onperusalofthecrossexamination, nothingwasbroughtabouttoshownonapplicationofmind.During the course of arguments. He was tried to point out that sanction grantedu/s.197andthatofP .C.Actaredifferentauthoritiesviz.P .W. 12andP .W.10.Consideringthesecircumstances,itisnecessarytosee provisionsofSection197andtheprovisionsofP .C.Act. Asperthe provisionsoftheP .C.Act,thesanctionistobegrantedbyaperson competenttoremovesaidpersonfromhisofficewhereasincaseof

JUDG.10/11

74

Section197,itissanctiontobegivenbytheStateGovernment.Thus, sanctiongrantedu/s.197ispropersanctionasgranted.Nothinghas beenbroughtaboutbytheaccusedintheircrossexaminationtoshow thatthesanctioniswithoutanyapplicationofmindand/orconsidering theactualfactsonrecord.Thus,consideringthesecircumstancesand inabsenceofanymaterialadverseandonperusalofSanctionorder,it isapparentthatthesaidsanctioningauthorityconsideredallthefacts sandcircumstancesandhascometotheconclusion,grantedsanction onapplicationofmind.Consideringthesame,thesanctioncannotbe found faulty with . The absence of some material before the sanctioningauthorityorthesanctioningauthorityunabletorecollect the material at any time for grant of sanction willnot vitiate the sanction . The material before the sanctioning authority makes out sufficientmaterialforgrantofsanction,samecanbegranted.Grantof sanctionisinitiationofproceedingsandnotfindingofguiltofsuch publicofficer. Consideringthesame,thesanctionasgrantedbythe StateGovernmentvideEx.133cannotbefaultywithandhence,the sanctionasgrantedu/s.197islegalandvalid. Pointno8:

JUDG.10/11 48.

75

The prosecution intended to invoke the provisions of

offencepunishableu/s.63(a)and(b)forprosecutingtheaccused.P .W. 11BhausahebJ.PatilhasgrantedsanctionagainstaccusedfromExh 87. OnperusalofevidenceofP .W11,itisseenthatthesaidofficer Bhausaheb Patil was working as a Superintendent of Stamps in the year2004.HehasstatedthatCBIinformedofsanctionorderagainst accused.Apparently,exceptingstatingaboutthesame,saidauthority has not applied its mind as to why sanction should be granted or refused. Even the sanction order is devoid of particular details pertaining to the said sanction. On what 'basis' or what was the documents perused by the sanctioning authority is conspicuously absenceinhisevidence.ItseemsthattheCBIofficerapproachedand he has granted sanction as contemplated u/s. 64 of the Bombay StampsAct.FromtheprovisionsofSection63(a)and(b),(a)applies toanypersonappointed,tosellstampswhodisobeysanyrulemade undersection69;and(b)appliestoanypersonnotsoappointed,who carriesonbusinessofdealinginstampsotherthanadhesivestampsof 20paiseoroflesservalue.Onperusaloftheallegedrolesofaccused workersandaccusedsuppliers,theyarenotappointedtosellstamps

JUDG.10/11

76

andsoalsodonotfallintothecategoryindealinginstampsotherthan special adhesive stamps of 20 paise or lesser value. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not seen any documents relating to the case in hand. Considering these facts and circumstances,thesanctionascontemplatedundertheBombayStamps Actagainstaccusedfailsandsameheldisheldtobeinvalid. Pointno9: 49. The prosecution has examined P 10. The sanction .W.

againstaccusedNo.9JadhavisatExhibit129.OnperusalofEx.129, onecanseethatthereisproperapplicationofmind,thewitnessinhis examinationinchiefandcrossexaminationhasalsostatedinsufficient wordsabouthisapplicationofmind.Consideringthesecircumstances, nothinghasbeenbroughtaboutinthecrossexaminationtoestablish nonapplication of mind. It was contended that there is no documentary evidence to establish and show how the process of sanctionwasinitiatedandthishasprejudiciallyaffectedtheaccused. Attheoutset,grantofsanctionisaprovisionwhichhasbeenmadein order to protect a public servant from malicious prosecution. The grantofsanctionand/orrefusalthereofhastobeconsideredinthat

JUDG.10/11

77

sense.ItisnotnecessaryashasbeenheldbycatinaofJudgmentsthat there should be not be judicial evaluation of the findings of the sanctioning authority. If that was so, no further judicial process for convictingoracquitting the accused would berequiredas the same wouldbe decidedbysuchauthority. Thus,whatistobeseenisif concerned authorities held that there were reasonable grounds for grantofsanction.Theissueofsanctionandtheprosecutormovingfor sanctiondoesnotremainanissueinviewoftheordersoftheHon'ble BombayHighCourtaspointedoutearlier.Itistobeconsideredthat when a particular fact come before the court, it is for the court to decideunderwhatprovisionstheaccusedistobetried.Itistheduty oftheprosecutortoassistthecourtandsoalsoitisthedutyofthe advocatefortheaccusedtoassistthecourt. Thus,ifitisfoundthat some offences are not mentioned in the chargesheet although circumstancesexisttoshowthecommissionofsuchoffences,thesame canbeincludedintrial.Thereisnobarringprovisionmadeunderthe P .C.ActorinlawwhichlaysdownadifferentcriteriaundertheP .C.Act and if the provisions of P Act are applicable. If it has not been .C. appliedwhatsoeverreason,nofaultcanbefoundwiththeprosecutor

JUDG.10/11

78

topointoutthisfacttotheI.O.Thefactofobtainingsanctioncanalso beattheinstanceoftheprosecutorwhohasadutytopointoutto lacunae which can be corrected. Thus, considering these circumstances,theissueofforwardingofproposalforsanctionlooses importance.Whatisimportantandmaterialforthecaseisthefactof the authority being competent and the fact of application of mind. Consideringtheseaspects,thefactthattheauthorityhasappliedhis mindisapparentfromtheoralevidenceandalsofromthesanction ordergranted. Itisalsosubmittedthatthesanctioningauthoritydid notconsiderthatnostatementaboutallegedactsoftheaccusedpolice officerswererecordedbytheI.O.beforeimplicatinghiminthecase. Apparently,fromthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,the only circumstance that exists are the case diaries of the concerned officer.Itisbasicallyacaseofassistinganaccusedbyshieldinghimby improper investigation and not taking proper steps for his arrest. Theseare tobeconsideredonthebasisofinvestigatingpapersdone bytheI.O.andthecasediarywhichmirroredtheinvestigationcarried out.Consideringthesecircumstancesandoverallfactsofthiscase,itis not disputed that these two sets of documents were before the

JUDG.10/11

79

sanctioningauthority.Oncethesetwosetsofdocumentscomesbefore the sanctioning authority and each relates upon the documents for applicationofmind,nofaultcanbefoundingrantofsanction.Based onthesedocuments,itissubstantiveandmaterialdocumentsthatisto be seen as pointed above, the provisions of sanction is based upon principle of protection of some government employees from some unnecessaryharassmentinprosecution.Thus,thelevelofsatisfaction tosanctioningauthorityisentirelydifferentwhenthatisrequiredby theI.O.orbyCourtofLaw. Consideringallthesecircumstances,the competency of said P 5 for removal of accused no.jadhav is not .W. disputed,thereappearstobeapplicationofmind. Thus,considering all these circumstances, there cannot be any fault in sanction order grantedbysanctioningauthorityagainstaccusedJadhavbyP .W.5. Pointno10: 50. Theprosecutionreliesuponthedocumentsviz.agreements

whichhasbeenseizedfromAshokLeyland. Theagreementsareat ArticleC1toArticleC49(exh31colly). Theprosecutionhasfiled reportsfromtheofficeoftheGeneralStampsOffice,theFSLetc.to establishtheirclaim. Duringthecourseofarguments,itisseenthat

JUDG.10/11

80

apparentlythisallegationagainsttheaccusedisnotseriouslydisputed. Thefactthatthestampsarecounterfeithasnotbeendisputedbythe accusedduringthecourseofarguments,butconsideringthepleaof not guilty raised by the some accused and also various other contentions taken, it would be proper to consider the evidence pertainingtocounterfeitingofstamps.FromtheevidenceoftheI.O.,it isapparentthattherewerethreewayswhichwereadoptedviz.(i)use ofcompletelycounterfeitsaidadhesivestamps,(ii)useofgumwashed special adhesive stamps and lastly use of stolen stamps from office duringtransitfromtheSecurityPrintingPress,Nasik. 51. Apparently,fromthechargesheetaswellasinvestigation

carried out, there has not been clear demarcation as to which documenthasbeencounterfeitedinwhichoftheabovethreemanners. Thus,onehastoconsidertheotherevidenceonrecord. Thereasons fornotcomingtosuchconclusionbytheI.O.hasnotbeenconsidered. Apparently,itmaybesobecauseofquantumofstampsinvolvedinthe case. InadmittedreportExh.70,theexperthasgiventhespecific opinionasfollows: Microscopicexaminationandvideospectualcomparatorcomparison

JUDG.10/11

81

ofthespecialAdhesivestampsmarkedQ.2toQ.4,Q.10,Q.13toQ.17, Q.68,Q.86,Q.115,Q.116,Q.127,Q.128,Q.284andQ.292revealed thatquestionsspecialadhesivestampswerepastedsubsequentlyafter removingthesamefromotherdocumentsduetofollowingreasons. Part of embossed/indented special adhesive stamp impression are presentontheabovesaidquestionedstamp.Theindentedimpression areshownvideredarrowsonthephotographsenclosed.Themarksof extragumbelowtheabovesaidquestionedstampswereobserved Ihaveexaminedthesaiddocumentspersonally.Onperusalofthese documents,thereisapparentcleardistinctionbetweenstampsworth Rs.1000/ and Rs.500/ and other stamps . These stamps are aslo affixeddifferently. Inthisregard,theevidenceoftheofficersofthe GSOisalsoimportant.ThefirstwitnessisthecomplainantatP .W.3. HewasSuperintendentofStampswhocreditedofunearthingstamps andfilingthecomplaintwiththepolice.Onperusalofhisevidence,he hasstatedthathehasinspectedtheagreementsattheOfficeofAshok Leyland.Hisevidenceinthisregardisunchallengedbyeitherofthe accused. Theaccusedno.1hascrossexaminedthiswitnessinlength andexpectedtryingtofindouthiscomplicityintheoffence.Nothing

JUDG.10/11

82

hasbeenbroughtabouttoshowthattheagreementsasstatedbythe SuperintendentoftheStampswiththerubberstampoftheGSOand signatureasproperofficerwereasitshouldbe.Thus,consideringExh 32 opinion of ISP Nashik, Exh 40 opinion of State examiner of documents,thesecircumstances,onehastoconsiderthecaseintwo perspective. Apparently, some of the special adhesive stamps were original,somewereforged.Whethertheoriginalstampscanbesaidto be counterfiet can be said to be tested within the definition of counterfeit. Section28oftheIPCdefinescounterfeitanditreadsas under: A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception willtherebybe practised. Anotherimportantaspectistobeseentheword'document'asdefined inSection2tenofIPCdenotesbymeansofletters,figuresormarkor bymorethanoneofthosemeans,intendedtobeused,orwhichmay beusedasevidenceofthatmatter.Section255oftheIPCdealswith counterfeitingofgovernmentstamps.Nodisputehasbeenraisedthat

JUDG.10/11

83

thespecialadhesivestampsarestampsissuedbythegovernmentfor thepurposeofrevenue.ExplanationtoSection255alsocontemplates that it is not necessary that a false or forged stamps be used for counterfeiting.U/s.255,itisclearthatapersoncommitsthisoffence whocounterfeitsbycausingagenuinestampofonedenominationto appearlikeagenuinestampofadifferentdenomination.Thus,itisa inclusivedefinitionwhichcontemplatesofauseofagenuinestampsto alsotobeconsideredasCounterfeit.Usedstampisofnovalueafterit issocancelled.Thus,tryingtoremovethemarkonitandaffixingnew marks on it will be one of the modes of counterfeiting and of government stamps. Even if we presumed that the stamps were genuineandwerenotusedaswouldbethecaseifthestampofthe thirdnaturei.e.bytheftfromtransportationareused,itwillfallwithin the definition of counterfeit. As pointed out earlier, it is a specific procedurethatislaiddownformakingthistobeproperlystamped under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act. The procedure is of paymentofmoneyobtainingforreceipts,forwardingthedocumentsto theconcernedauthority,gettingthestampaffixedbythesaidauthority, puttingpropersealbythesaidauthority,endorsementandsignatureof

JUDG.10/11

84

proper authority on the said stamps and documents. Thus, if we considerthesecircumstances,evenifthestampsofthethirdcategoryis usedwhichisaoriginalstampandithasnotbeenusedthesamewill fallunderthecounterfeitingandwillnotcomeundertheprovisionsof documentproperlystampedundertheprovisionsof BombayStamp Actandrulesaslaiddownisnotfollowed.Thus,readingofprovisions ofcounterfeitingasdefinedu/s.28andreadingitwithSection255of IPC, there is no doubt that performing act of any of the three eventuality will be an offence u/s. 255 of IPC. Considering these circumstancesandtheevidenceoftheGSO,ISP ,theC.A.ofFSLandthe GEQD,onecomestoadefiniteconclusionthatthestampswhichare affixed on documents Articles 6/1 to Articles 6/68 are counterfeit governmentstamps.FromtheevidenceoftheofficeofAshokLeyland ,itisclearthattheoffenceofTelgiwassupplyingthesedocuments withaffixedspecialadhesive stamps. Thevariousreceiptsandbills identifiedisestablishedtobegivenbythefirmofAccusedno1.The sameisalsoadmittedbyaccusedno.1. Thepaymentsweremadeby cheques,thevariousdocumentsclearlyestablishthedepositofcheques andwithdrawalofthesechequesfromaccountofTelgiaccusedno.1.

JUDG.10/11

85

All these circumstances clearly established that these stamps were certainly purchased by Ashok Leyland after payment of the said amount toaccused no.1. Thus, the fact that accusedno.1 supplied counterfeit stamps to Ashok Leyland as has been alleged by the prosecution stands established by the documents and evidence as statedabove.Hence,Ianswerthispointinaffirmative. Pointno11: 52. P .W.5hasstatedthathealsoreceivedcashmemosreceipts

Exh.31BinthenameofGSO.Asincaseoftheabovestamps,various expertsreportshavebeenobtained. Allofthemhavestatedthatthe sealsandreceiptsareforgedreceiptsandnotprovedbythepress.This corroborates the contention of the officers of the GSO who have deposed in that regard. Thus, considering these aspects, one can certainlysaythatthereceiptswerealsoforgedandfalse,documents weregiventoAshokLeyland.HenceIanswersaidpointinaffirmative. Pointno12 : 53. Section120BofIPCdealswithconspiracy.Section120B

definesconspiracyastwoormorepersonsagreetodoorcausetobe doneanyillegalactoranactwhichisnotillegalbyillegalmeans.Itis

JUDG.10/11

86

necessary to consider another provision pertaining to proof as contemplatedbylaw.Section3oftheIndianEvidenceActdefinesa factexisttobeprovedafterconsideringthematterbeforeit,thecourt eitherbelievesittoexist,orconsidersitsexistencesoprobablethata prudentmanoughtunderthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,to actuponthesuppositionthatitexists. Thus,proofofafactisasis applicabletoacommon,generalprudentperson.Thewordsbeyond reasonable doubt as is generally used with regard to the accused cannothaveanygreatermeaningbeyondthepurviewoffactprovedas contemplated u/s. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is under these circumstances that the facts are to be appreciated in this particular case. It is to be also a factor of consideration that the incident occurredintheyear1995andtheentireprocessremaineddormanttill judicial intervention in the year 2003 after the arrest of Telgi. As pointedoutabove,thefactthatTelgisoldsuchcounterfeitstampsand issuedforgeddocumentsisnotindisputeseriously.Evenotherwisethe prosecutionhasestablishedaspointedoutabovethefactthataccused no.1issuedsuchcounterfeitspecialadhesivestampsandalsoreceipts whichareforged. Whileconsideringthequestionofconspiracy,one

JUDG.10/11

87

hastoconsideritintwoparts.Thefirstpartiswithaccusedwhoare alleged suppliers . Accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 are alleged suppliers. Accusednos.2,6,7,8and10areallegedworkerswhoareworkingin theOfficeofTelgi.Itisnecessarytoconsidertheconspiracyasbetween thesepersonsseparately. Itisnotnecessarythatalltheconspirators should be at one and the same place, one and the same time and entered into a conspiracy. A conspiracy can be a set of separate meetingswithseparatepersonstoobtainacommonobjecttocommit anactwhichisanoffence.Itislikeanecklaceofbeadswhereineach beadisseparate,buttogethertheyformanecklace.Consideringthese circumstances, we have to appreciate whether the prosecution has establishedconspiracy.Aspointedoutearlier,thecategoryofaccused isdividedintothreepartsviz.suppliers,workersandothersupporting staff. 54. Ishallfirstconsidertheconspiracyasisallegedbetween

accusednos.4and1.Fromtheevidenceofvariouswitnessesviz.the workers working at Telgi's Office, it is seen that Anil P 6,pw 7 .W. identifies accused no.4. All these persons identified on different occasiontheexistenceofTelgiandSonitogetherintheoffice.Itisalso

JUDG.10/11

88

inevidencethatSoniwasalsoarrestedinanothercaseregisteredwith MRAMargPSalongwithaccusedno.1forsimilaroffenceforwhichhe has been convicted and appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High CourtofBombay.Consideringallthesecircumstances,theevidenceof thecoworkerandotherwitnessesaspointedoutabove,establishes clearly the fact that atleast accused no.4 and accused no.1 were togethersincetheendof1993. Consideringthesecircumstancesand thefactthataccusedno.4wasrepeatedlycomingandmeetingaccused no.1 establishes some relationship between two. Thus, considering thesecircumstancessubsequentactsofTelgiinapplyingforstampduty andhisinvolvementinthecounterfeitstampsasstatedaboveandthe furtherevidenceofaccusedno.4beingalongaccusedno.1Telgifora substantialperiodthereaftercreatessufficientgroundorhissufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that Ram Ratan Soni was in fact associated with the accused no.1 and was taking active part in the businessofthecounterfeitingaspropagatedbyTelgi.Itiswithgreat wisdom that the fact proved has been given the status of being in existencesoprobablethataprudentmancanconsidertheexistenceof thesaidfact.Theabovecircumstancesshallbesufficienttoshowthat

JUDG.10/11

89

RamRatanSoniaccusedno.4wasinfactcloselyassociatedwithTelgi during the period of transactions. Considering these circumstances, the involvement of conspiracyand the involvement ofconspiracyof preparingcounterfeitstampsofaperiodofcustodystandsdifferedas regardsaccusedno.4. The alleged offence viz. Conspiracy to deal in counterfeiting of government stamps of Ashok Leyland, being in possession of said material, sell of such material being in possession of counterfeit stamps,usinggenuinecounterfeitstamps,usingusedstamps,forgery, cheating, forgery of public document, forgery of valuable security standsestablishedasagainstaccusedno.4RamRatanSoni. 55. Now I shall consider another supplier viz. Mohammed

Yasinaccusedno.3. Inthisregard,theevidenceofPWs.13,14&16 highlightsthisissue.P .W.13&14arethesupplierofstampstoYasin. PW16isdriverofYasin. PW16hasidentifiedaccusedno1with Mohd.YasinA3assuch. Consideringthisevidence,apparently,itis soonthatTelgiandMohd.Yasinweresoontogether. Usingthesame analogy as is applicable to Ram Ratan Soni, the offence as against Mohd.Yasinismadeout.Mohd.Yasinissaidtobesupplierwhohas

JUDG.10/11

90

suppliedgumwashedstampsfromKolkatatoaccusedno.1. Thereis noevidenceofsuchGumwashingorrecoveryfromaccusedno3,but onecannotexpectthesameafteraperiodofabout810yrs. 56. Now I Shall consider relating to accused no.7Sanjay

Gaikwad. P 5Mopalwar speaks out the alleged transaction and .W. forgery.P .W.6AnilBambaniidentifiesaccusedno.7SanjayGaikwadin theOfficeofaccusedno.1Telgi,(hisevidencein111&112istobe readinthiscaseaspernoteontheoralevidence).P .W.6alsoidentifies A3Sanjay Gaikwad, Thus, from the evidence of P .W6, the modus operandiofputtingofstampsisestablished. Fromtheevidence the closerelationshipofSanjayGaikwadwithTelgihasbeenestablished. Putting these two circumstances together, it would come to an inevitableconclusionthatSanjayGaikwadenteredintoconspiracyof preparingandsupplyofcounterfeitstampsalongwithTelgi. 57. Now we come down to conspiracy as regards the other

accusedviz.Accusedno.2ShabbirShaikh,accusedno.6RiyazMokashi ,accusedno.7MalleshDullanwaraccusedno.8Danielandaccusedno 10Inam.Itisnotdisputedthatallthesepersonswereworkingwith accusedno.1Telgi.Ithasalsonotbeendisputedbythesepersonsthat

JUDG.10/11

91

Telgiwasdealingincounterfeitstamps. Muchwasharpeduponby theseaccusedthatthewitnessesdeposingagainstthemwereinfact the accused in the earlier investigation. On perusal of the entire chargesheetandeventheinvestigationascarriedoutbyaccusedno. 10, nowhere the complicity of these witnesses, is seen. In fact statementsofSalimYahoowasrecordedbyaccusedno10waybackin 1995. It has been admitted that accused nos. 5 and 6 in their statementsu/s.313ofCr.P .C.admittedthattheywereresidinginNew MetroGuestHousealongwithTelgi.DanielA8alsoadmittedthesaid fact. The evidence of P 6 shows that blank documents collected .W. from company is to be presented to Riyaz, Mallesh Dullanwar and Daniel.P .W.6AnilBambanihasalsosupportedthefactthataccused Riyaz, Mallesh and Daniel used to collect stamps. P .W.36 has also statedthatthecustomersofthedocumentsusedtohandovertoRiyaz, MalleshandDaniel. Consideringallthesecircumstancesandthefact thatadmittedlythesepersonswerestayingwithTelgi. Accusedno.2 Shabbir Shaikh, A8Daniel come from the same locality as that of Telgi. These persons hadto show somethingmore than just taking advantageofthefactthattheywereworkingdriver,peonordelivery

JUDG.10/11

92

boyofTelgi.Theirroleswereapparentlyotherthanwhatisallegedby them.TheirremainingwithAccusedno1everywhereineachofhis offices, for office meetings and only persons taking the blank documentsoutoftheofficeandbringingitbackstampedtotheoffice showstheirroleinexcessthantheirdefenceofmereemployees.The crossexaminationofthewitnessesemployeesofTelgidoesnotshow suchexcesses.Infact,itwouldbeseenthatthesefourworkerswere commonduringdifferentperiodsoftimewhenP .W.34toP .W.38were workingwithTelgi.Thus,theirinvolvementwithTelgiforalongtime stands established. There are no circumstances to show the exact natureoftheirjob,thesalaryreceivedbythem,ifany,andthepurpose ofaccommodatingtheminMetroGuestHousealongwithaccusedno.1 andthereasonforsuchgenerositybyaccusedno.1. Apparently,all thesepersonsareverycloselyassociatedandworkingwithaccusedno. 1,evidenceofthesewitnessesestablishedthesecloserelationshipand longlastingrelationshipwithaccusedno.1.Theyhavenotdeniedthe factthataccusedno.1wasdealinginsuchcounterfeitstamps. The source of knowledge of such information, lack of specific details as statedbyotherwitnesses,workers,periodofworking,closenessand

JUDG.10/11

93

associated with accused no.1 and the period of time bring to a conclusionthattheywereworkingtogetherwithTelgiinperpetrating the crime of counterfeit stamps and were active members in such conspiracy.Apparently,theevidencedoesnotattributespecificroleto thespecificaccusedandhence,onecanonlysaythatthesemembers areofsuchconspiracy. 58. Asregardsaccusedno10theevidenceofPws.1921does

notgivesuchevidenceagainsttheaccusedexcepthebeingaregular employee of Telgi. The statement of Fatima PW 21 cannot be consideredasevidenceoffactbutonlypertainstohergivingofsuch statementtoCBI.Consideringthisaspectthereisnoevidenceagainst theaccusedNo10. Pointno13&14: 59. Asregardsaccusedno.9,onehastoconsiderconspiracyin

itsuniquesense. Conspiracytocommitanactcouldbeinpart. It couldbeindifferentlocationand/ordifferentplaces.Itcouldbewith personswhonevermetoneanother.Whatisimportantisthefactthat all these were part of a transaction leading to commission of an offence.Itcouldbethatduringsuchprocess,numberofotheroffences

JUDG.10/11

94

could also be committed. Thus, conspiracies could be group of conspiraciesleadingtoacommonobject.Conspiracyhasbeendefined aspointedoutearlierinSection120AoftheIPCwhentwoormore personsagreedtodo,orcausetobedoneanillegalact,thusimpliesof meetingofmind.Explanationtoitstatesthatitisimmaterialwhether theillegalactistheultimateobjectofsuchagreement,orismerely incidentaltothatobject.Aspointedoutabove,chargeu/s.120Bhas beenframedagainstaccusedno.9. Beforeproceedingtoseewhether accusedno.9isalsoinvolvedinconspiracyorabetmentasdefinedu/s. 109,itwouldbenecessarytoconsideriftheallegationsaspointedout bytheprosecutionaremadeout. 60. Thechargeagainsttheaccusedpoliceofficersisalsointhe

threecases u/s. 109 ofthe IPC. It iscontended that u/s. 109, the abetementpertainstotheoffencewhichhasbeencommittedherein these proceedings. Apparently, the present offences have been committedintheyear199595andthattheabetmentisofchargefrom 19952003. Itiscontendedthatasthechargeofallegedabetmentis beyond the act of alleged forgery of stamps committed during the courseofthistransaction,thesamewillnotamounttoabetmentofthe

JUDG.10/11

95

saidoffence. Itishence,contendedthatnochargecouldhavebeen framed u/s. 109 and even on this ground, the accused should be acquittedtothesaidoffence. 61. As against this, it is contended by the learned S.P . by .P

permittingtoTelgiescape,theaccusedpoliceofficershavefacilitated theoffenceswhichTelgihadcommittedsubsequentlyafterhisrelease and hence, accused should be charged and committed of the said offences. 62. On perusal of the entire chargesheet and the charges

framedagainstthepoliceinvestigatingofficers,itisapparentthatthe chargeofabetmentofthelateroffencescommittedbyTelgisubsequent tohisescapefromtheHon'bleBombayHighCourt. Itistruethatin regularcourseorgenerallyapersonistriedforanabetmentofthe offence which is beingtriedin the saidcase then thiswould be an uniquecasewhereinafterthecommissionoftheoffence,apersonis beingtriedforabetment.Section109statespunishmentforabetment of an offence viz. the punishment which is there for the offence of abetment.Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedhasdistinguishedthe such cases of abetment stating that the provisions of abetment are

JUDG.10/11

96

retrospectiveinnatureandnotprospectiveinnature.Hereliedupon therulingofTrilokchandvs.StateofDelhireportedin1977SC666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the issue of abetment has held that intention to do the commission of crimeisthegistoftheoffenceofabetmentbyaid. Healsofurther relied upon the ruling of Ranjit Singh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtrareportedin2005SCC(Cri)1057. Attheoutset,the saidcaserelatestotheprovisionsofMCOCActwhichiscompletely different provision than the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the case pertainstoappreciatingtheevidenceprimafacie,forconsiderationof bail. Thus,thelawasenunciatedintheRanjitSinghSharma'scase will not be applicable to the present case and the interpretation of abetmentascontendedthereinshouldnotbeapplicabletothiscase. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has distinguished the abetmentinnormalsensetothatofabetmentincaseofMCOCAinthe caseofKishorilalvs.StateofM.P .reportedin(2007)Volume3SCC (Cri)701,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasdefinedabetmentof a thing. The offence of abetment is if he instigates, engages or intentionallyaids,byactorillegalomission,thedoingofthatthing.

JUDG.10/11

97

These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. It has furtherbeenhighlightedtheword'instigate'meanstoprovoke,incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. 'Abetted' in Section109meansthespecificoffenceabetted.Therefore,theoffence for abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In the case of Besistha NaryanSinghvs.StateofMaharashtrareportedin2004,ALLMR (Cri)2596, theHon'bleBombayHighCourthasconsideredtheissue ofconspiracy.Itisheldthatconspiracyarisesandoffenceiscommitted as soon as agreement is made and the offence continued to be committedsolongthecombinationpersists.Theessentialingredients ofoffenceisagreementtocommitoffence. Further,thecaseof Saju vs.StateofKeralareportedin2001,Cr.L.J.page102, theHon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that u/s. 10 of Evidence Act, the conductofoneaccusedcanbeusedaoffenceagainstanotherincases of conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India highlighted the judgment meaning given to criminal conspiracy in the case of E.G. Barsayvs.TheStateofBombay(AIR1961SC1762). Thegistoftheoffenceisanagreementtobreakthelaw.Theparties

JUDG.10/11

98

tosuchanagreementwillbeguiltyofcriminalconspiracy,thoughthe illegalactagreedtobedonehasnotbeendone. Sotoo,itisnotan ingredientoftheoffencethatallthepartiesshouldagreetodoasingle illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. UnderS.43oftheIndianPenalCode,anactwouldbeillegalifitisan offenceorifitisprohibitedbylaw.Underthefirstchargetheaccused arechargedwithhavingconspiredtodothreecategoriesofillegalacts, andthemerefactthatallofthemcouldnotbeconvictedseparatelyin respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering the questionwhethertheoffenceofconspiracyhasbeencommitted.They areallguiltyoftheoffenceofconspiracytodoillegalacts,thoughfor individualoffencesallofthemmaybeliable. FromtheprovisionsofSections106,107andthesaidruling,itisseen that conspiracy implies an agreement to break the law. It is not necessary that all the parties should do any act, but it may be the numberofacts. Itshouldnotbenecessarythateachindividualact shouldbeillegalactandlegalact.Alegalactleadingtoillegalactor tocommitillegalactwouldalsobeconspiracy.Therehastobeseen ultimate object. If there is agreement and there is ultimate object

JUDG.10/11

99

whichisanoffencethenconspiracyisestablished.theconspiracymay not be at one place and time, but it can be at different places and differenttimeoftheconspiratorsdidnotknowoneanother.Itisalso highlightedthattheoffencesofconspiracyissomethingdifferentthan that of other offences and if separate offences than itself while considering abetment it has been contended that the prosecution is required to prove that the abettor has instigated same being absent accordingtothelearnedcounsel,theaccusedshouldbeacquitted.He also relied upon the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kesa & Ors. reportedin2002,Cr.L.J.page432whereinithasbeenheldagainas statedintheaboverulingpertainingtocriminalconspiracyhasbeen reiterated.Thus,consideringallthesefactsandcircumstances,onehas to consider whether if the alleged act of officers in constituting abetment. Thisshallbediscussedwhileconsideringthefactsofthe case. the aspect that has to be discussed is whether the previous conduct or act during the present offence which according to prosecution has facilitated future offence can e considered. At the outset,itmaybepointedoutthatduringthecourseoftrial,itisan admittedfactthatTelgiandotherswerealsoprosecutedunderMCOCA

JUDG.10/11

100

forcommittingsuchmanyoffencesbeforethelearnedSpecialJudgeat Pune.Theaccusedhaspleadedguiltytoallthechargesandhavebeen convictedinthesaidoffence.Thispertainstovariousincidentsforthe periodofwhichfacilitationisallegedinthepresentcase. Thefacts andcircumstancesoftheMCOCAcaseandthechargeinthesaidcase hasbeenhighlightedbymypredecessorinherorderdated14.5.2008. Thecontentiontakeninthesaidapplicationandthepointbeforemy learnedpredecessorJudgewasthatthenatureofallegationbeingthe sameintheMCOCAcaseandthepresentcase,itwouldamountto double jeopardize. Thus, it was contended that the charges for abetmentandconspiracyshouldbedropped. Ifweperusedthesaid lawaslaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheabove referredcasesandsoalsotheorderpassedbymylearnedpredecessor, onecancertainlyseethatwhattheprosecutionintendstoproveinthis case is facilitation and forgery of stamps by accused no.1 and his associates subsequent to1.12.1995 when the accused Telgiwaslast seenbeforehisarrestin20032004. 63. Section107defineswhatisabetment.Asalreadypointed

outabove,itimpliesinstigation,engagementandaiding.Section107

JUDG.10/11

101

onlyprovidesameaningtoword'abetment'. Itispertinenttonote here that the legislature also contemplated explanation to the said provisionwhichfurtherhighlightedorstates,natureandscopeofthe word 'abetment' as contemplated under the law. Explanation 2 to Section107readsasunder: Explanation 2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commissionofthatact,andtherebyfacilitatethecommissionthereof, issaidtoaidthedoingofthatact. Thus,facilitationofthecommissionoftheactissaidtoaidtodoingof theactandhence,abetmentoftheact.Theactofabetmentofthecase process the offence. Thus, perse if we considered the offence of abetment,italmostoccurredbeforeandpertainstoperformingofa futureactorsubsequentactbytheaccused.Thisisalsoprovedincase ofconspiracy.Thus,ifweisolatedtheallegationswithbygettingTelgi caughtfreeorabscondingorhelpinghimescapefromthecourtfrom therigorousoflaw,itcouldbesaidtobefacilitatingtheaccusedso that he could commit such offence which admittedly he has done subsequently.thepersonevadestheprocessoflawinordertoescape

JUDG.10/11

102

theclutchesoflawandasinthiscaseithasbeenpointedouttoagain commitsimilaroffences,apparently,fromthefactsandcircumstances asispointedoutinvariousdocumentsfiledbytheaccusedhimself,itis seenthatpriorto1.12.1995,Telgiwasseentobealocalscamstarwho wasoperatingwithfewcompaniesinBombay. Apparently,afterthe escapeorfleeingawayon1.12.1995,itisseenthathehasexpanded hisillegalactivitiesalloverIndia.Theseriousnessoftheoffencewas alsoconsideredby the Hon'ble BombayHighCourt and alsobythe Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court even monitored the investigation and the present investigation also. the enormityoftheactofTelgisubsequenttheretocausedtheformationof SIT, caused the CBI to investigate the offence and also caused the invocation of secret provisions of MCOCA against Telgi. All these aspects are part of record in the present proceedings and as such, admittedbytheparties.Hence,judicialnoticeofthesecontentionscan betaken. Forconsideringthisissue,itwouldbesufficetosaythat theseareadmittedfactsthatTelgiafter1.12.1995,committedsimilar offencesofcounterfeitingstampetc.andhehasbeenconvictedbya competentcourtinthatregard. Theissueastowhetherpermitting

JUDG.10/11

103

Telgitoescapeandotheractsandcommissionsamountstofacilitation ofactualaspectwillbeconsideredsubsequently,butsufficetosaythat as a result of such, Telgi being free he has committed such further offences. Thus, the act of the investigating officer as alleged if established,willcertainlycomewithinthedefinitionoffacilitation.As alleged by the prosecution, the facts are so established that will amounttofacilitationofcommissionofanoffence. Itwillfallunder the provisions of abetment and section 109 of the IPC. The only questionremainsastowhetherthesaidoffencecanbetriedwiththe presentoffence.Whilepassingtheorder,mylearnedpredecessorhas consideredthesaidissueandasheldthatasthepresentoffenceofthe investigating officers has been committed during the course of transaction and series of acts forming part of such transaction, the samecanbechargedandtriedtogether.Consideringthisaspectbyan application of Section 221 of Cr.P and other provisions of law, .C. certainly the offence of abetment committed between 1995 and thereaftercanbetriedinthistrial. Thesearepeculiarcircumstances whicharelinkedtothefactsofthepresentcase.Theculpabilityofthe officerwasinvestigatedonthedirectionsoftheHon'bleBombayHigh

JUDG.10/11

104

Court.Thiswasdoneafterasubstantiallongperiodofcommissionof offencei.e.nearlyaftereightyears.Itwasonlywhentheentireaction of the police officer was viewed in that context that the alleged offenceissaidtohavebeencommittedbythepoliceofficers. Thus, consideringallthecircumstances,onecannotsaythatthereisanyfault intheprosecutiontotrytheseoffenceswiththepresentoffence.The allegedactsoftheinvestigatingofficers,ifproved,willestablishand falls within the provisions of abetment as contemplated by law. Chargeshavebeenframedveryspecificallyasregardsaccusedno.9. Asperthechargeframed,numberofcommissionsandomissionshave beenattributedtoaccusedno.9. 64. At the outset, the entire evidence of the prosecution is

based upon the case diary viz. Exhibit 31 colly. This case diary maintained during the investigation of Crime by accused no 10 . is admitted.Asregardsinvestigation,nofurtherfactsareattributedthan statedinthecasediary.Anotheraspectthatistobeconsideredisthe objection taken by this I.O. to the bail application, both, before the SessionsCourtandtheHon'bleBombayHighCourt. Itisthemaingroundofdefenceoftheaccusedthatalltheknowledge

JUDG.10/11

105

thatisattributedtoaccusedno.10isalsoattributedtovariousother senior police officers to whom the investigation was disclosed from timetotime.SameisalsoattributedtotheDCB.CID,SIT,CBItowhom the investigation was transferred from time to time. It is further contended that similar omissions have also been done by the other seniorpoliceofficers.InvestigationwasplaceduptotherankofDCP andMinisterforLawandOrder.Soalsoitiscontendedthatsimilar omissionshavealsobeencommittedbytheofficersofDCB,CID,SIT and CBI and also that of investigating officer Mr. Mukhedkar while investigatingtheoffenceregisteredinMRAMargpolicestation. Itis also contended that the investigation of MRA Marg police station shouldbetreatedasbasisandcomparisonshouldbemadewiththe present investigation and on comparison, according to the learned counsel for the accused, one will find that similar investigation has beencarriedout.Itiscontendedthattheinvestigationascarriedout by accused no.10 was to the best of his ability, capability and understanding. Abilitydiffersfrompersontopersonandhence,like improperabilitywillnotimplicatetheaccused. 65. Attheoutset,thecontentionofthelearnedSPPthatthere

JUDG.10/11

106

canbenocomparisonoftheinvestigationandtheroleofinvestigating officer the accused and the other investigating officers as to be accepted.Thisissimplysobecausethechargesareframedagainstthe presentaccusedI.O.Justbecausechargesarenotframedagainstother I.Os.oraparticularI.O.investigatedforcircumstancesstatedthereinin aparticularwaydoesnotinanywayabsolvethepresentinvestigating officerwhoisarraignedasanaccused.Thus,theentirelineofcross examination and the defence of the accusedinvestigating officer of tryingtocomparehisactivitiesorhisactionwiththatofotherI.Os. Andtryingtobringabouttheirfaultscannotbeconsidered.Itmerely showsthattheaccusedistryingtoputtheblameonotherofficers. Evenifitispresumedorthecontentionoftheaccusedisacceptedthat theotheraccusedhavecommittedacrimeorcommittedsimilaract,it willnotabsolvetopresentaccused. Atthemosttheactionofthese officers may be to consider if the acts of accused are bonafide. Consideringthesecircumstances,theentirelineofcrossexamination andevidenceandcontentionsofcomparisonofinvestigationcarried outbyBhole, Sr.P .I.,P .I.Crime,ACP ,DCPKarkare,wouldbeofno consequenceandhastobeignoredassuch.Asissaid,thecasediary

JUDG.10/11

107

reflects the investigation carried out by a officer and supported his investigation. Insimilarcircumstances,thecasediaryatExhibit31 colly.supportstheinvestigationcarriedoutbyaccusedno.9. 66. It is necessary to ascertain whether the knowledge

attributed to the accused no. 9 is made out. The first knowledge regardingallegationofcounterfeitinganddefraudingthegovernment ofrevenueisanadmittedfactandnotdisputed.ThefactthatTelgihas committedsuchoffenceisalsoisanadmitted.ReplyofAccusedno.9 totheapplicationforanticipatorybailbothbeforetheSessionsCourt andtheHon'bleBombayHighCourtestablishesthataccusedJadhav washavingknowledgeaboutaccusedno.1Telgidealingincounterfeit stampsandspecialadhesivestampsetc.andthesaiddealingsarewith AshokLeylandsoalsoaboutsimilaroffencebeingregisteredwithother policestation,(crimereport29Exh.91).Thefactthatspecialadhesive stampscanonlybesoldbyGSO,soalsothefactthatSanjayGaikwad and Sony were arrested as associates of Telgi by MRA Marg police station, payments were made by cheque and said cheques were encashedbyTelgiandthatdocumentswhichwereallegedlycounterfeit stampswereproducedbeforehimsoalsothefactthatthearrestof

JUDG.10/11

108

Telgiwasnecessary.Accusedno.9hasnotdeniedthathewasaware ofthesefacts. Infact,inrepliestotheanticipatorybailapplication before the Sessions Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court highlightthesaidfact. 67. Nowletusconsidertheomissionsifareestablished. To

understandtheseomissionsifareestablished,onehastoconsiderthe variousinvestigationsasarecarriedout. Itisnotdisputedthatthe offencecametoberegisteredonacomplaintofMopalwar.Itisseen that directions were to arrest the accused. On 31/7/1995 the investigationofthiscrimewashandedovertoA/9APIJadhav. IncasediaryExh95(Note29)A/9Jadhavhasmentionedthathe hadreceivedinformationabouttheoffenceregisteredatotheragainst accd.Telgiandhisassociatesanddetailinquiriesisbeingmade.Ram RatanSoniwasnotinterrogated.Stampsnotsentforverificationto ISP ,Nasik.ThestampsnotsenttoChemicalAnalysersoastotraceout whether there is chemical washing. These documents along with recovereddocumentsnotsenttoGEQD.Hecouldhavetracedmoney trails, cash and cheques, buyers and customers of this spurious instruments.Thereshouldhavebeenbacktracking,tracingofprinting

JUDG.10/11

109

as well as chemicals, marketing network, transportation system of Telgi. A/1TelgiwaswitnessincaseregisteredbyA9JadhavatC.R. No.333/94 in Cuffe Parade P Stn. and there is remark of PI Crime . aboutthesameinthecasediary.ThereforeA/9JadhavwasawareA/1 Telgi, he did not pursue this lead to trace him out. During the investigationwithSalimyahooandPunnaduraidonebyA9Jadhavhe came to know that Telgi had sold the special adhesive stamps to variousorganizationslike:(i)BankofIndia,D.N.RoadBranch (ii) NewIndiaInsuranceCompany,Fort (iii)AshokLeylandCo.,World TradeCentre,BHPCL(iv)Purnanand(v)MasticBank,NarimanPoint (vi)BankofBaroda,Churchgate, (vii)HDFCBank,LowerParel.A/9 Jadhavhadnotinitiatedanystepsforfurtherinvestigationinrespect of sell of counterfeit stamps to these organizations. Original documentswerenotseizedimmediately. A/9JadhavhadnotmaintainedthediaryaboutthepresenceofA/1 Telgi at the time of attendance of Telgi at the time of hearing on anticipatorybailappln.beforetheSessionsCourtandHighCourte.g. thereismentionthatitwasadjournedon20/11/95butthereisno diaryof20/11/95,21/11/95,29/11/95.

JUDG.10/11

110

ItisalsoseenthattheaddressesasstatedinthebailapplicationofShiv Sadanwasfalse.Fromthesaidnoting,itisseenthatSessionsCourt hasdirectedTelgitoappearandinassistininvestigation,.Whatsteps were taken when he attended as per note No 37 Exh 91. What interrogationwascarriedoutisnotstated. In Note no. 40 (XXXX) dtd 1/11/1995 the concerned officer has alleged tried to search for Telgi in the locality of High Court of Mumbai,aftertherejectionofABAbySessionsCourt.Itiscontended thatbeforeorderofrejectionwaspassed,theaccusedwentawayfrom fromthecourtandhence,hecannotbearrested.Butifitwasknown thattheaccusedwasnottraceable,itwashisabundantdutytotryto keepatabontheaccusedwhowaspresentinthecourt.Whysuch stepsastakenonorbefore1/11/195werenottakenon1/12/1995is notexplainedbytheaccused. Thereafterthereisapparentlullinthe investigation. Thus, if the entire proceedings are seen it be seen that apparently therein,notpursuedinvestigationcarriedouttotraceouttheaddress ofTelgiorotherknownaccused,notpursuedinvestigationtotraceout astowhichpersonswereattendingtheofficeofTelgi,thenamesand

JUDG.10/11

111

addresses of such persons how Telgi came in possession of this premises. The investigating officer has further not pursued investigation with regard to other transactions which he could have seenfromthestatementofaccountofTelgiwhichhehadrecovered fromCitiBankandStateBankofIndia.Itisnotseenthathepointed outspecificallytothelearnedSessionsCourtandtheHon'bleBombay HighCourtabouttheaddressofTelginotbeingknownsoalsoitis seen that noncompliance of order of the learned Sessions Court directingattendancehasalsonotbeenhighlighted. 68. Thus, from all these circumstances and the facts stated

above, let us see if the omissions as stated in the charge stands established. First pertains to noncompliance of instructions of superior. Fromthecasediaryitself,itisapparentthatthedirections givenfromtimetotimewerenotfollowed,thestatementsofwitnesses werenotdiligentlyrecordedimmediately,noeffortswerebeingmade totraceouttheotheraccused. Theotheromissionsisincidentalto this. Thereisdifferenceincolourandqualityofthedifferentstamps affixedontheagreements. 69. It is always said that investigation which is carried out

JUDG.10/11

112

earlierrevealsthemostoftheevidence.Asinvestigationgetsdelayed, oneloosesimportantevidence. ItisapparentthatifTelgiwastraced or interrogated, involvement of other accused could have been revealed,suchcounterfeitstampsorsealsusedofGSOcouldhavebeen recovered,butthiswasneverdone.Accusedno.9waswellawarethat othertwoaccusedSonyandGaikwadwerealsoarrestedwithTelgiby MRAMargpolicestation.SurprisinglythepresentI.O.didnotfeelit relevanttointerrogatebothofthesetwoifnotforthepurposeoftheir involvement in the present offence, but atleast to find out modus operandiandwhereaboutsofaccusedno.1.Itwascontendedbythe accusedno.9thatasperhisability,capabilityandunderstanding,he has carried out investigation. It is also his defence that he was involvedinnumberofinvestigationsandsoalsoinvolvedinspecial duties which resulted in some laxity in investigation. It is also submittedthattheinvestigationortheentirenatureoffraudcouldnot begatheredanditwasconsideredasanisolatedcaseofforgeryand counterfeiting.Theability,capabilityandcompetenceofaccusedno.9 isevidentfromthefactthathewaspostedinGBCIDaspecialbranch. If he was given various special duties, thus, this speaks highly of

JUDG.10/11

113

competency, ability and capability of accused no.9. The other contention ofinvestigationcouldbe carried out furtheron arrest of Telgifalseonthegroundashehimselfhascarriedoutinvestigation with other witnesses, but has not persuaded them further for the reasonsbestknowntohim. MaybearrestofTelgiwasmaterial,but beingaseasonedpoliceofficerandhandlingsomanyinvestigations,it isnotexpectedthathewouldgettheleadinthecaseeasily. Itwas necessary for him to investigate and to unearth the lead. It was purportedthatcrimestoppedafterinvestigationwastakenoutcannot becreditedtoaccusedno.9.Acceptingthecontentionofaccusedno. 9thathewasinvolvedinvariousspecialduties.etc.wemayignore periodbetweentwocasediaries. 70. Thus, perse from the investigation papers which are

admitteddocuments,itisseenthattheentireprocessofinvestigation ascarriedoutbyaccusedno.9thereislackofomissionsasstatedin thechargeareaptlyhighlighted. Thefactthatthedirectionsofthe superiorwereneverfollowedisalsoapparentfromthecasediary.The fact that documents were not forwarded to the ISP or FSL also apparentfromthecasediary.Noreasonshavebeenassignedastowhy

JUDG.10/11

114

itwasnotdoneso.Itiscontendedthatinvestigationwasnevertaken over by the senior officers, no disciplinary action was taken by the seniorofficer. Theomissionsandactsasstatedaresoveryapparent and so very clear that it cannot be said to be something which is beyondthenatureofcommonprudentinvestigatingofficermuchsoof ahighlyintelligentinvestigatingofficerlikeaccusedno.9. 71. Thechargeframedagainstaccusedno.9isnotmerelyof

committing such omission. The charge is by committing such misconduct,theaccusedhasassistedinclosureofinvestigationinthe saidcasesoastoallowingtheprincipalaccusedno.1remainedcaught freeinordertofacilitateandfurthercontinuationofsuchconspiracy forcounterfeitingofsuchspecialadhesivestamps.Itisnotindispute thatTelgiwasneverarrestedforasubstantialperiodoftime.Itisalso notdisputedthatevensubsequentlyTelgicarriedouthisactivitiesof counterfeiting government stamps. Now the only issue arises is whetheritisdoneintentionallyornot.Ifitamountstoanintentional act,thenonlyitwillfallwithinthedefinitionofanoffenceorpartof conspiracy. 72. Itisnecessarytomentionherethattheoffenceallegedis

JUDG.10/11

115

alsofacilitationascontemplatedu/s.107Explanation2.Asispointed out earlier, facilitation a commission of an act can be said to be abetment,butonehastoreadtheexplanationinitsentirety. Itsays whoever,eitherpriortooratthetimeofcommissionofanact,does anythinginordertofacilitatethecommissionofthatact,andthereby facilitatethecommissionthereof,issaidtoaidthedoingofthatact. Admittedly, the act of abetment is the offence of subsequent counterfeiting.Theactofcounterfeitingcanbedividedintonumberof actsasinthiscase.Eachcounterfeitingwouldbeaseparateoffencein itself.Inthepresenttrial,itisonlytheoffenceofAshokLeylandthat hasbeenconsidered.Thereisnoevidenceoranyspecificovertactor counterfeitingcontendedtobedonebyaccusedafter1.12.1995.Thus, fromthesefactsandcircumstances,althoughfacilitatingcouldbean offence,itwouldbeanoffenceoffurtheractandnotwhileconsidering apastact.Thus,facilitationoffurthercounterfeitingcannotbelinked tocounterfeitingpertainingtoAshokLeyland.Thus,offenceu/s.109 willnotbemadeout,butchargeisalsoframedu/s.120B.Onehasto considerwhetheritwillbeapartofconspiracy.Apparently,fromthe entireevidenceonrecord,thereisnothingtoestablishthedirectlink

JUDG.10/11

116

ofaccusedno.9andTelgi. Whatisthebaseofmeetingofmindsof Telgi and whether such meeting of mind would be required. Conspiracyisbetweentwopersonsandcanbegatheredonlyfromthe circumstances. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparentthattheomissionsasallegedagainstinvestigatingofficerare blatantandapparentonthefaceofit.Onecannotcomprehendsuch blatantmistakesofanyI.O.Consideringthesecircumstances,itisnot necessarythatthereshouldbespecificevidenceofmeetingofmindof Telgiandaccusedno.9.Lawcontemplatesmeetingofmindofanytwo persons. Sufficetosaythatsaidcircumstancespointoutexistenceof propergroundtocometoaconclusionthattherewassomeconspiracy hatched, but classified the case as A summary and in pursuance thereoftheactivitiesandinvestigationwascarriedout.Howcanone explainthefactthatinspiteofwitnessesbeinginvestigated,inspiteof propertybeingseized,thenatureofcounterfeitingwasnotexamined, inspiteofvariousleadsaboutvariousaddressesofTelgiwerepresent, noneofthemwasfollowed,inspiteoftherebeingotheraccusedthan Telgi,surprisinglynosearchoreffectivesearchwascarriedoutofany of these persons. The reasons for such blatant lie cannot be

JUDG.10/11

117

apprehended. Having considered these circumstances, apparently, there exist circumstances to establish conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution. 73. The second aspect pertains to criminal misconduct as

contemplatedu/s.13(1)(d)oftheAct.Misconductisaverydifferent terminologywhichhasbeenusedbytheLegislatureundertheP .C.Act. Section13(1)contemplatesordefinedmisconduct.Subsection13(1) (d)contemplatesthatbycorruptorillegalmeans,obtainsforhimself orforanyotherpersonanyvaluablethingorpecuniaryadvantageor byabusinghispositionasapublicservant,obtainsforhimselforfor anyotherpersonanyvaluablethingorpecuniaryadvantage;orwhile holdingofficeasapublicservant,obtainsforanypersonanyvaluable thingorpecuniaryadvantagewithoutanypublicinterest. Thethird partofholdingofficeasapublicservant,obtainsforanypersonany valuablethingorpecuniaryadvantagewithoutanypublicinterestand soalsoabusinghispositionaspublicservantandobtainsforanyother personanyvaluablethingorpecuniaryadvantagecouldbeapplicable inthepresentcase.Inthecasereportedintheyear1962betweenM. Narayan Vs. State of Kerala reportedin AIR 1963, SC 1116, the

JUDG.10/11

118

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has stated that a new offence of criminalmisconductbyapublicservanthasbeencreatedundertheAct and it enacted a rebuttal presumption contradictory to well known principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is a socially useful measure conceivedinpublicinterestanditshouldbeliberallyconstruedsoasto bring about desire object i.e. to prevent corruption amongst public servantsandtopreventharassmentofthehonestamongstthemsoalso ifanactisperformedunderthecolourofauthority,butwhichinthe realityisforpublicservant'sownpleasureorbenefitthensuchactshall notbeprotectedunderthedoctrineofsuchimmunity. Inthecaseof Narayan Vs. State of Kerala, the case of public servant causing wrongfullosstothegovernmentbenefitingathirdpartysquarelyfalls withinthedefinitionofmisconduct.Thus,itisnotnecessarythatthere shouldbe corruptorillegalmeans,legalactbenefitingathirdparty without any public interest can amount to a misconduct. Abuse of positionwillalsofallwithinsuchdefinition.Theabusemeansuseof positionforsomethingforwhichitisnotintended.Abusemaybeby corruptorillegalmeansorotherwisethanthosemeans. Thereisno limitationontheotherwise.Theonlylimitationisaboutabusewhich

JUDG.10/11

119

indicates necessity for a dishonest intention to bring it within this clause. 74. It was urged by the learned SPP that the confession as

recordedofTelgishouldbereadinthesetwocases.Attheoutset,itis necessarytoconsiderthefactsandcircumstancespriortorecordingof confession. ThethreetrialswhichgoingbeforethiscourtareSpecial CaseNos.111/2004,112/2004andalsoSpecialCaseNo.10/2011. Spl.CaseNo.10/2011wasinitiallyS.C.No.550/1996anditwastried assuchasitwasdirectedtoberenumberedasSpecialCasebymy learned predecessor. The trial of Special Case Nos. 111/2004 and 112/2004 started before hand and the said two trials which were clubbedtogetherashasbeenindicatedbymewhileconsideringthe validityofclubbing.Theevidencewasproceededinthesetwocasesto berecordedbymypredecessorandatthattime,inJanuary2006,Telgi proposedtoconfess.Thesamewasobjectedtobytheaccusedinthese two cases. Mylearnedpredecessor upholdthe objection and states thattrialhasalreadycommenced,confessionofaccusedno.1u/s.164 cannotbereadandhence,rejectedthereliefasclaimedbyaccusedno. 1,butinCaseNo.10/2011(S.C.No.550/2004)eventhesamewas

JUDG.10/11

120

notcommittedandhence,Courtpermittedrecordingofconfessionin thatcaseandaccordinglythesamecametoberecorded.Thisorderof the then Sessions Judge was challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the same came to be rejected also by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upholding the order of recordingof confession. Thus, confession was validly recorded at that trial by making due compliance,butitwassorecordedinSpecialCaseNo.10/2011. 75. SubsequentlythetrialofSpecialCaseNo.10/2011started

andbyanorderofthelearnedpredecessoron27.6.2011,SpecialCase Nos.111/2004and112/2004wasclubbedtogetherwithSpl.CaseNo. 10/2011.Intheproceedingsviz.Spl.CaseNo.10/11,anapplication cametobepreferredvideExhibit18,prayingthatthecomplainantMr. Mopalwartobemadeanaccused.Thesaidapplicationwaspreferred byaccusedno.1. Whileconsideringthesaidapplication,relianceon the said confession of accused no.1 was being sought. My learned predecessorconsideredthesaidapplicationonmeritsanddirectedthat thecomplainantMr.Mopalwari.e.theSuperintendentofG.S.O.should bejoinedandarraignedasanaccused. Thesaidorderischallenged beforetheHon'bleBombayHighCourtandissubjudicedandtheeffect

JUDG.10/11

121

andoperationofthesaidorderisstayed. Fromtheorder,itisseen that the order of joining Mr. Mopalwar, Superintendent of G.S.O., Mumbaihasbeenpassedbymylearnedpredecessorinallthethree casesandwhilepassingthesaidorderhasreliedupontheconfession ofTelgi. 76. Apparently,inviewoftheorderoftheHon'bleHighCourt,

staying the execution and operation of the said order of joining accusedbelowExhibit18beingstayed,onecannotreadthecontentsof thesaidapplication. 77. Suffice it to say that provisions of Section 164 are very

strictandstringentandhastobereadastheyare.Theevidencewas notrecordedinthiscasewhenthecasewasnotbeforetheHon'ble HighCourtwhenitdecidedtheissueof Confessioninthiscase.The contentionthatconfessioncannotbereadintheseastrialastheearlier evidenceofthewitnesshasbeenreadinthiscase.Thisevidencein earliercasebeingreadinthiscaseclearlyviolatesthemandateofSec 164.Onecannotsubverttheproceduretoreadtheevidencerecorded earlier to the confession and such confessions together by such a method.

JUDG.10/11 78.

122

Theprotectiongrantedassuchishighlightedbythefactsof

thepresentcase.Itisapparentthattheconfessionwasrecordedof TelgiafterthematerialwitnesseswereexaminedinOthercases.The confessionreeksofsuchevidence.Itisgivenasiftocorroboratethe evidenceinthesetwocasesandisancillarytotheevidenceofthiscase. Theevidenceofmanypersonsallegedlystatedintheconfessionwas notbroughtbeforethiscourttoexaminetheveracityandcorrectness oftheconfession.Onecannotreadtheconfessionpiecemealandto acceptitorrejectitentirely.Soalsoitcannotbesaidtheevidenceis truthfulandcorroborated.Thereisnoevidenceordisclosureaboutthe amount used and to whom given by Telgi . Thus technically the evidenceasrecordedinthiscasepriortoconfession,henceusingthe same law as laid down the rial and inquiry can be said to have commencedcommenced. Thus,consideringthesecircumstancesand theprovisionsofSection164andtheorderofmylearnedpredecessor rejectingrecordingofconfessioninthesecasescertainlyonecomesto onlyconclusionthatthesaidconfessioncannotbereadinthiscasealso . 79. Aspointedoutearlierandaspointedoutwhilediscussing

JUDG.10/11

123

clubbing of cases, the evidence in all these three cases has been recordedseparatelyandallthethreecasesarebeingtriedseparately. Theonlyaspectisthattheyarebeingtriedtogether.Thesethreecases arenotamalgamatedtogetherlikeSessionscasesandthespecialcases ineachofthecases. Thus,consideringthesecircumstances,Idonot findanymeritinthecontentionoftheSpecialP .thattheconfessionof .P TelgirecordedinSpecialCaseNo.10/11shouldbeconsidered. 80. It is apparent from the reading of the evidence in the

presentcasethatthereisnocasemadeoutthataccusedno.9 got somebenefitorreceivedsomegainalthoughitwastriedtobestated by the prosecution that Telgi's confession shows such obtaining of pecuniaryadvantage,thesameforthereasonshereinabovecannotbe considered.Theword'corrupt'hastobegivenawidermeaning 81. Considering these facts and circumstances,let us examine

thepresentallegedomissionsoftheaccusedAccusedno9.Asalready pointedout,thereareblatantomissionscommittedbyaccusedno.9. Theseomissionsareofsuchanaturethattheyapparentlyontheface ofitwhichshowsapparentlackofeventhebasicability,capabilityas allegedbytheaccusedinhisdefence.Thereisnodisputethataccused

JUDG.10/11

124

no.9isapublicservant. Thereisnodisputethatevensubsequently, TelgicarriedouthisnefariousactivitiesandcommittedStampScamof unparalleled nature. As is apparent from the plea and charge as framedintheMCOCCourtinPune,Telgiwasfoundinpossessionof counterfeit stamps worth more than Rs.2000 crores. Such is the magnitudeofthelapseofactofaccusedno.9.Thus,thefactthatvery smallfishwhowasrunningaroundinwatersofMumbai,becausehe could successfully evaded his arrest as a result of above improper investigation became a shark. There is certainly grave pecuniary advantageandheturnedouttobeastampsharkcommittingoffences alloverIndia. Thus,abuseofpositionstandsestablished,gainingof pecuniaryadvantagestandsestablished. Consideringthisaspect,the actofaccusedno.9squarelyfallswithinthedefinitionofmisconductas contemplatedu/s.13(1)(d)oftheP .C.Act. Pointno.15: 82. Fromtheaboveaspectanddiscussion,itisseenthatthe

prosecution has established counterfeiting and has also established counterfeiting of stamps used for revenue purpose. It has also established that used stamps have been reused. Considering the

JUDG.10/11

125

entirety, prosecution has established commission of offences under Sections255,256,258,259,260and262oftheIPC. 83. FromtheissuanceoftheGSOreceiptswhichareapparently

forgedandfalsedocuments,itshowsthatthereceiptscanbevaluable documentasitcontemplatesandcertifiespaymentofrevenueofthe government. Thus, it can be said to be a valuable security as contemplatedunderthelaw.Thus,fromthesecircumstances,offence offorgery,forgeryofvaluableofsecurities,forgeryofcheating,using of forged documents as genuine as the same were given to the concernedcompaniesstandsestablished.Thus,commissionofoffences u/s.465,466,467,468and471ofIPCstandsestablished. 84. Asperthediscussionabove,theoffencesu/s.13(1)(d)r/w

13(2)ofthePreventionofCorruptionActstandsestablished. 85. Inabsenceofspecificoffencespertainingtothefutureact,

prosecutionhasfailedtoestablishabetment.Hence,failedtoestablish offencesu/s.109ofIPC. 86. Criminalconspiracyfordealinginsuchcounterfeitstamps

isestablishedsoalsoforcommittingitselfforgeryisalsoestablished. Hence, offence u/s. 120B of IPC is established by the prosecution.

JUDG.10/11

126

Fromtheevidenceonrecord,thefactthatTelgisoldthestampswere being dealt with by unauthorised persons stands established, but in viewofthesanctionhavingfailed,offenceu/s.63(a)and(b)arenot madeout. 87. From the facts and circumstances as stated above, the

companywascheatedbysupplyofstampsandinducedintopayment ofsuchamount.Thus,thereiswrongfulgainestablished,inducement establishedwiththepurposeofcheatingisestablished.Hence,offence punishableu/s.420ofIPCisestablished. 88. AsregardsA9Jadhav,forthereasonsstatedabove,offence

u/s.218ofIPCisnotmadeout.Fromtheactivitiesasstatedherein before, lack of detention, laxity has resulted in a public servant omittingtoapprehendsuchpersonandhasalsobynotkeepingatab onhismomenton1.12.1995hasintentionallysufferedthatpersonto escape and aid such person to escape and hence, has committed offencepunishableu/s.221oftheIPC. 89. Accused no.1AbdulKarimLadsahebTelgihas committed

offencepunishableu/s.255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465, 466,467,468and471ofIPCr/wSec.120BofIPC.

JUDG.10/11 90.

127

Accused no.2Shabir Ahmed Mustaq Ahmed Shaikh, A3

Mohd. Sayed Mohd. Yasin, A4Ramratan Sriniwas Soni, and A5 SanjayJaywantGaikwadhavecommittedoffencespunishableu/s.259 and120Br/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467, 468 and 471 of IPC r/w Sec. 120B of IPC. They are acquitted for offences punishable u/s 255,256,259 of IPC . Accused no 2 is also acquitted for offences punishable u/s 258,420,466,467,468 of IPC . Accusednos4&7areacquittedforoffencepunishableu/s63ofthe Bombaystampact 91. Accusedno.6RiyazAhmedMokashi,A7MalleshBalappa

Dhulannavar and A8Daniel V Kanikraj have committed offences . punishableu/s.120Br/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420, 465,466,467,468and471ofIPCr/wSec.120BofIPC.Theyare acquittedforoffencespunishableu/s255,256,259ofIPC.Accusedno 10 Enam Mukhtarali Pirbhai Choudhary is acquitted of all charges agaisnthim 92. Accused no.9. Ganpat Waman Jadhav has committed

offencepunishableu/s.221,418ofIPCandu/s.13(1)(d)r/w13(2)of P .C.Actr/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467,

JUDG.10/11

128

468and471ofIPCr/wSec.120BofIPC. 93. Accusedno9 isacquittedforoffencepunishbaleu/s218

and109r/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467, 468ofIPC. 94. 95. Accusedareconvictedaccordingly Atthisstage,Ishalltakehereapausetoheartheaccused

onthepointofsentence.

29thFebruary,2012.

(A.SUBRAMANAIAM) SPECIALJUDGE, GREATERMUMBAI.

Heardaccusedandthelearnedcounselfortheaccusedon the point of sentence. It is submitted by the accused and their advocatesasunder: 96. AccusedNo.1Telgi.IamsufferingfromHIV ,uncontrollable

diabetes,heartdisease,neuropathy,severemedicalproblem.Icannot walkfor2steps.Bothlegsareparalyzed.Iamonwheelchairwithtwo supports.Cystinleftkidney.Myhealthisdeterioratingdaybyday.My wife is on death bed. She is seriously ill. I have one daughter of

JUDG.10/11

129

marriageableage.Thereisnomalepersontolookaftermyfamily.Iam theonlymaleperson.Iprayforminimumsentenceandlesserfine.I cannotpaythefine.Iprayforleniency.IaminJudicialcustodysince 07/11/2003. I pray for my set off. The sentence should run concurrently. 97. Accusedno.2ShabbirAhmedMustaqShaikh.Iaminjail

sincelast10years.Thereisnobodytolookaftermywifeandsmall sister. I pray for leniency and minimum fine. I was arrested on 28/10/2002byBandGardenPoliceStation. 98. Accusedno.3Mohd.YasinIamfalselyimplicatedinthis

case.IwasacquittedinthecaseatBangalore.Iwastransferredfrom Bangalore in this case. I am illiterate. I am suffering from sickness. Leniencybegranted. 99. Accused.no.4RamratanSoni. I am sole earning male

memberofmyfamily.Iprayforlessersentenceandlesserfine. 100. Accused.no.5SanjayGaikwadIamnofeelingwell.Ihave

sufferedimprisonmentinsameoffencefor7years.Iprayforminimum fineandsentence 101. Accusedno.6RiyazMokashi.Mywifehassmallkids.Iam

JUDG.10/11

130

soleearningmember.Mybrotherandfatherhavedied.Mymotheris not well. I pray for minimum sentence. I am not in a position to depositfine. 102. Accused. no. 7Mallesh Dullanwar. I have 75 years old

mother, 3 children and wife. I am sole earning member. Since 04/09/03tilltoday,Iamincustody.Iprayforminimumsentenceand fine. 103. Accused. no. 8Daniel Kanikraj. I pray for minimum

sentenceandfine. 104. Accused. no. 9Ganpat Jadhav. I have investigated

diligentlyandtruthfully.Iamsoleearningmemberinmyfamily.Ihave nothiddenanyfactsinmyinvestigationanddisclosedallthefacts. 105. Consideringtheabovesubmissions,Ishallcategorizedthe

accused into three categories viz. supplier, workers and government servants. 106. As regards accused no.1, he is contended that on his

medicalground,heshouldbeconsideredleniency. Ifapersonlearns fromhismistakes,leniencycanbeshown.Onesisamistakeanddoing itrepeatedlyisanhabit.Eventhearrestanddetectionofaccusedno.

JUDG.10/11

131

1Telgididnotdeterhimfromcarryingouthisactivities.Onecansay thattheactsofaccusedno.1arenothingbuteconomicterrorismon the State. Not only has a State suffered, but number of persons, private parties have suffered loss of such counterfeit stamps and documents.Itisnecessarytoconsiderthateverycounterfeitstampput ineverycaseandeverycounterfeitsealputineachcase,theaccused wouldbeliableforsuchoffence.Nodoubtasperthemedicalrecords tenderedbyhim,heisseentosufferfromvariousailments.Sufficeto say that necessary medical aid is being provided at the States cost. Considering these circumstances, the only leniency which can be shown to accused no.1 is to collectively gave one sentence and not separatelyforeachstamporsealcounterfeitorforgedbyhim.Ifitis so considered, sentence would be of eternity. Considering these circumstances,offenceu/s.255,467and471arepunishablewithlife. Theconductshowsthatthereisnodeterrentforhiminspiteofhis arrestand/ordetention,hehasnotlearntfromthesaidactivities.In fact, by pleading guilty, after long trial and praying for sentence is nothingbutmockeryofthecriminaljusticesystem. Fromhisalleged activities,nothingshortofdeterrentpunishmentandpunishmentso

JUDG.10/11

132

thathecannotcommitsuchoffencesagainisrequired.Accusedno.1 Telgihascomplainedabouthisillness,butinfactheisavirus,illness tothissociety.Offenceu/s.255,467,471arepunishablewithlife.In caseofSwamyShraddananda@MurlyManoharMishrav.Stateof Karnataka[AIR2008SC3040]thehon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia hasstatedthatthiscourtcandecidetheperiodofsentenceandcanbe for a life time also. Thus without remissison. Hence, maximum punishmentofLifeimprisonmentwithoutremissionisgrantedtothe accused. 107. Foroffencesu/s.256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,

467,468and471ofIPCisthegrantedimprisonmentforaperiodof fiveyears.Foroffencesu/s.262,418,420,465,466,467,468and471 isgrantedimprisonmentoftwoyears. 108. As regards accused no.2Shabbir Ahmed Mustaq Ahmed

ShaikhandA5SanjayGaikwad,itisseenthatRamRatanSonihas also been convicted in one of the sister case. In the facts and circumstancesofthecase,itseemsthatchargeonlyu/s.259hasbeen established.AsregardsA4Soni,apparentlyfromthevariouscharge sheets,hewasarrestedinthesomewhereintheyear2003. Hewas

JUDG.10/11

133

detainedinjailsince201011. Similar,isthecaseofotheraccused Shabir Shaikh whowasarrestedon 27.1.2003, A5 Sanjay Gaikwad who was arrested on 15.9.2003. They have undergone substantial periodinjailduringthetrialofthiscase. Apparently,fromthefacts andcircumstancesofthecaseaspointedoutinmyjudgment,except being in possession and associating with accused no.1, nothing has been established as against these accused. The offence u/s. 259 is punishable with seven years. Accused have nearlyundergone these sentences of about more than seven years. Considering the same, I sentencetheseaccusedasperfinalorder. 109. As regards other accused viz. Riyaz Ahmed Mokashi,

MalleshBallappaDhullanwarandDanielKanikraj.RiyazMokashiwas arrestedinAugust2003,MalleshwasarrestedinSeptember2003and DanielwasarrestedinJune2004asinthecaseofotheraccused,they werealsoreleasedonbailintheyear20102011.Theallegationisof criminalconspiracy.Itisseenthatbeingconspiracywithaccusedno.1 in a course of their employment, such conspiracy had evolved. Consideringthesenatureofcircumstancesandfactthattheseaccused areinjailforaboutmorethansevenyears,theseaccusedaresentence

JUDG.10/11

134

forimprisonmentalreadyundergone.Hence,orderaccordingly. 110. Asregardsaccusedno.9Jadhav,aspointedoutearlier,the

offencewhichisagainstthesaidaccusedisu/s.418r/w13(1)(d)r/w 13(2)ofP .C.Actandsoalsou/s.221.Punishmentu/s.221isforthree years,u/s.418isalsothreeyears,thepunishmentundertheP .C.Actis minimum one year to seven years. It was contended that he had carried out investigation as per his ability and capability. I have alreadydiscussedofthesaidofficerinthecourseofmyjudgmentand itdoesnotrequireanyreiteration.Sufficetosaythatfromthealleged investigation which was carried out by accused no.9Parmar, apparently,thereisnoinvestigationatall.Onehastoalsoconsiderthe effectsofsuchactsonthesocietyatlarge.ItisgenerallytheJudicial systemthatstandblamedforacquittalsandothersystem.Onehasto reallyconsiderthefactofsuchinvestigationandsuchmisconductas statedinmyjudgmentseriously.Therightsofthesocietyatlargeare alsotobeconsidered.Itisinthehandsofthesepoliceofficersthatthe securityofthesocietyhasbeenkept.Suchbreachoftrustorthesay must certainly causes much anguish. Considering this aspect as regardsaccusedParmarapparentlythereistotallackofinvestigation.

JUDG.10/11

135

Suchconductcoupledwiththeeffectofthesame,hasresultedinTelgi remainingcaughtfreeandcreatingalargeempire.Consideringthese circumstancesandactofaccusedParmarinSpl.CaseNo.111/2004 standsoutwiththoseofotherpoliceofficers.Asregardsaccusedno.9 Ganpat Jadhav in Special Case No. 10/2011, from the facts and circumstancesofhisinvestigation,itappearsthatsomeinvestigation waspurportedtobecarriedout.Asstatedabove,tosomeextent,his roleisseparatefromthatofaccusedParmarandcannotsaidtobeas seriousasthatofaccusedParmar. Insuchcircumstances,interestof justicewouldbeservedbysentencinghimandpaymentoffine,asper finalorder. 111. Inthefactsandcircumstancesstatedabove,Iproceedtopassthe followingorder: ORDER. 1. Accusedno.1AbdulKarim LadsahebTelgiisconvictedof

offencepunishableu/s.255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465, 466,467,468and471ofIPCr/wSec.120BofIPC. 2. Accused no.1Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi is ordered to

suffer imprisonment of Life without remission for each offence

JUDG.10/11

136

punishableu/s255,467,471,Sec.120Br/w255,256,258,259,260, 262,418,420,465,466,467,468and471ofIPC. 3. Accused no.1Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi is ordered to

sufferRIforFiveyearseachforoffencepunishableu/s256,258,259, 260,420,466,468ofIPConeachcount. 4. Accused no.1Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi is ordered to

sufferRIforTwoyearsforeachoffencepunishableu/s262,418,420, 465,466,467,468and471ofIPC. 5. Accused no.2Shabir Ahmed Mustaq Ahmed Shaikh, A3

Mohd. Sayed Mohd. Yasin, A4Ramratan Sriniwas Soni, and A5 Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad are convicted for offences punishable u/s. 259and120Br/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466, 467,468and471ofIPC. 6. Accused no.2Shabir Ahmed Mustaq Ahmed Shaikh, A3

Mohd. Sayed Mohd. Yasin, A4Ramratan Sriniwas Soni, and A5 Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad are acquitted for offences punishable u/s 255,256,259ofIPC. 7. Accusedno.2ShabirAhmedMustaqAhmedShaikh,isalso

acquittedforoffencespunishableu/s258,420,466,467,468ofIPC.

JUDG.10/11 8.

137

A4Ramratan Sriniwas Soni, and A7Sanjay Jaywant

Gaikwadareacquittedforoffencepunishableu/s63oftheBombay StampAct. 9. Accused no.2Shabir Ahmed Mustaq Ahmed Shaikh, A3

Mohd. Sayed Mohd. Yasin, A4Ramratan Sriniwas Soni, and A5 Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad each is sentenced to the period already undergoneforoffencespunishableu/s.259and120Br/w255,256, 258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467,468and471ofIPCand furthertopayfineofRs.10,000/each(Rs.TenThousandeach). In default,toundergofurtherimprisonmentforSixmonths. 10. Accusedno.6RiyazAhmedMokashi,A7MalleshBalappa

Dhulannavar and A8Daniel V Kanikraj are convicted of offences . punishableu/s.120Br/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420, 465,466,467,468and471ofIPCr/wSec.120BofIPC. 11. Accusedno.6RiyazAhmedMokashi,A7MalleshBalappa

Dhulannavar and A8Daniel V Kanikraj are acquitted for offences . punishableu/s255,256,259ofIPC 12. Accusedno.6RiyazAhmedMokashi,A7MalleshBalappa

Dhulannavar and A8Daniel V Kanikraj each are sentenced to the .

JUDG.10/11

138

periodalreadyundergoneforoffencespunishableu/s.120Br/w255, 256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467,468and471ofIPC. 13. Accusedno.9GanpatWamanJadhavisconvictedofoffence

punishable221,418ofIPC u/s.13(1)(d)r/w13(2)ofP .C.Actand 255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420,465,466,467,468and471of IPC. 14. Accusedno.9GanpatWamanJadhavistosufferRIforFive

yearseachforoffencepunishableu/s.13(1)(d)r/w13(2)ofP .C.Act andSec.120BofIPCr/w255,256,258,259,260,262,418,420, 465,466,467,468and471ofIPCandtopayfineofRs.15,000/only (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only). In default, to undergo further imprisonmentforsixmonths. 15. Accusedno.9GanpatWamanJadhavistosufferRIforOne

yeareachforoffencepunishable221,418ofIPC. 16. Accused no.9Ganpat Waman Jadhav is acquitted for

offencespunishableu/s.218and109r/w255,256,258,259,260, 262,418,420,465,466,467,468ofIPC. 17. Accused no 10Enam Mukhtarali Pirbhai Choudhary is

acquittedforalltheoffencesframedagainsthim.

JUDG.10/11 18.

139

Accused nos. 1Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi, 2Shabbir

AhmedMustaqAhmedShaikhand6MalleshBalappaDhulannavarare injailothersareonbailtheirbailbondstandscancelled.Theybetaken intocustody. 19. Accusedareentitledforsetoffasperlawfortheperiodof

theirdetentioninthiscase. 20. TheissueofShriMopalwarandhistrialissubjudicebefore

theHon'bleHighCourtofBombayandhencepropertyanddocuments aretobepreserved. 21. Sentences pertaining to accused nos. 2 to 9 shall run

concurrently. 22. Sessions Cases Nos. 753/2003, 757/2003, 756/2003,

849/2003,458/2004and550/2006standdisposedoffaccordinglyin termsofaboveorder. 23. ThisorderpertainstoCrimeRegisteredbyCBI,Mumbaiin

CrimeNo.RC9(E)/2004/EOU7. 24. A10EnamMukhtaraliPirbhaiChoudharyshallfurnishPR

bondofRs.15,000/andsuretyoflikeamountasperSection437Aof Cr.P .C.

JUDG.10/11 25.

140

Accusedtocollectcopyofjudgmenton9.3.2012.

29thFebruary,2012.

(A.SUBRAMANIAM) SPECIALJUDGE, GREATERMUMBAI. Dictatedon:14.2.12,15.2.12,17.2.12 18.2.12,23.2.12,24.2.12&29.2.12. Transcribedon:Asfaraspossible,day todaybasis. Signedon: C.C.issuedon