Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 1161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, JJ.
State of Karnataka (Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru) Through Central Bureau of Investigation - Appellant
Vs.
Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Kareem Lala S/o Lad Sab Telgi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2011
Decided On : 03-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P. Prasanna Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri M.T. Nanaiah, Sri K. Hemanth Kumar, Sri Amar Correa, Sri Younous Ali Khan, Sri M. Shashidhara, Sri Dilraj Rohit Sequiera, Sri Syed Khaleel Pasha, Sri B.V. Venkat Rao
Headnote:INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Section 420 - Cheating - Charges against accused involving hatching of conspiracy for sale and possession of fake stamp papers when co-accused lodged in Central Prison - No material produced on record to prove ingredient of intentional deception against accused - Charge sheet filed for offences taking place prior to period that was under enquiry by Investigating Agency - Offence of cheating, held, not established - Accused is entitled to acquittal.
KARNATAKA CONTROL OF ORGANIZED CRIMES ACT, 2000 [K.A. No. 1/2002] - Sections 3(1)(ii), (4), (5) - Possession and sale of counterfeit Government stamps - Organized crime syndicate - Accused allegedly involved in large scale manufacture, sale and circulation of fake stamps and stamp papers as members of organized crime syndicate - Though distinct charges framed against accused persons, no material on record to prove that more than one charge sheet filed against all of accused within preceding period of 10 year - Single charge sheet filed against accused for alleged offence committed during time span of around 2 years - Very basis of invoking provisions of Section 3 of Act, not available to prosecution - Accused neither members of organized crime syndicate nor continuing unlawful activities - Accused was acquitted.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Section 13(1)(d) - Criminal misconduct by public servant - Misconduct of providing facilities to in-custody accused - Accused, police officers hatched conspiracy for sale of fake stamp papers when co-accused were lodged in Central Prison - Co-accused lodged in Central Prison as ' C' class under-trial prisoner - Co-accused not being ' high security prisoner' required to be kept in common barrack sharing common accommodation with other inmates - Contrary to prison rules, Accused provided co-accused with facilities of ' A 'class prisoner - Special room provided to co-accused fitted with wooden door, windows and curtains to block visibility - Regular meetings between co-accused persons also facilitated along with use of mobile phones - Accused despite having full knowledge about illegal activities of co-accused, abetting same - Accused, though part of police force, provided co-accused with various arrangements and contrivances, so as to facilitate him to carry on his illegal activities from precincts of Central Prison - Conviction, held, proper.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Section 13(1)(d) - Criminal misconduct by public servant - Meaning of expression 'obtains for himself or for any other person' - It includes act of omission or commission by public servant, by which any person obtains for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage - Such public servant can be made answerable to charge of criminal misconduct for his actions.
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 [C.A. NO. 49/1988] - Section 13(1)(d) - Criminal misconduct by public servant - Word 'obtains' denotes not only acceptance of bribe and illegal gratification by public servant himself, but also for other persons.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974] - Section 179 - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action - Accused allegedly involved in large scale manufacture, sale and circulation of fake stamps and stamp papers - Criminal conspiracy hatched amongst accused, within territorial limits of Karnataka - Merely because accused persons found in possession of incriminating material outside area of Karnataka and circulating it beyond territorial limits of Bengaluru Courts, cannot bar territorial jurisdiction to try such case - Every offence would be triable within local jurisdiction of Court where offence was committed - Place of search and seizure cannot be determining factor in fixing forum of trial - Proper place for prosecution of accused would be Courts, at Bengaluru.
The State has filed this appeal under Section 378(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C., challenging the acquittal of respondents/ accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 to 11, 18, 26, 31, 32 and 33 in S.C.Nos.643 of 2003, 352 of 2004 and 353 of 2004, dated 14.9.2010, on the file of the Special Judge, 35th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore.
2. The facts leading to the appeals are as follows:
3. Accused No.1 - (Abdul Kareem Telgi) was arrested in Crime No.545 of 2000 of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru city for the offences punishable under Sections-255 to 266, 461, 463, 468, 471, 475, 420 read with Section-120B of Indian Penal Code, on the accusation that he was involved in large scale manufacture, sale and circulation of fake stamps and stamp papers. He was lodged in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru as UTP No.4148.
4. The case of the prosecution is that despite being in judicial custody, accused No.1 – Abdul Kareem Telgi, continued his illegal activities of sale and circulation of fake stamps in different parts of the country like Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai, Tiruchi and Hyderabad by entering into criminal conspiracy with his associates either contacting them in person in the Central Prison or through mobile phones.
5. Information was collected to the effect that his associates i.e., accused No.2 Badruddin and accused No.3 Rafi Ahmed were regularly visiting Bengaluru Central Prison on one pretext or the other and meeting accused No.1 to conspire for sale and circulation of fake stamps. On collecting reliable information about the ongoing activities of accused No.1 and his associates, STAMPIT, the investigating agency obtained necessary permission from the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for intercepting clandestine communications between accused No.1 and his associates. The telephonic surveillance was mounted on various mobile numbers which were being used by accused No.1 and his associates. The audio cassettes containing the conversation together with the specimen voice samples of accused No.1 and his associates were sent to CSFL, CBI, New Delhi and it was confirmed that the voices recorded in the audio cassettes were of the same persons. The mobile phones (Samsung and Nokia) were recovered at the instance of accused No.2 Badruddin on 18.10.2002. Accused No.1 was initially using the Nokia Handset and after he had access to the Samsung handset, he handed over the Nokia handset to Badruddin for his use. During investigation, it revealed that accused No.1 was exclusively using four mobile numbers from these handsets:
(i) 98453-83006
(ii) 98450-28563
(iii) 98450-30697
(iv) 98451-23568
6. The accused persons were frequently changing the SIM cards resulting in change of mobile numbers. The analysis of the intercepted conversations between accused No.1 and his associates revealed that accused No.1 was monitoring and instructing his associates for running the fake stamp circulation across the country despite his confinement in the Central Prison. It also revealed that accused No.1 was given the status of a special security prisoner in the Central Prison and accused Nos.2 and 3 used to meet him regularly. Following the lead obtained from the conversations between accused No.1 and his associates, the accused persons were arrested and at their instance, large volume of fake stamp papers and seals and allied materials were seized at different parts of the country and the investigation having disclosed commission of offences punishable under Section-120B IPC r/w. Sections-256, 258, 259 and 420 of IPC and Section-63(b) of Karnataka Stamps Act 1957; Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections-3, 4 and 25 of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000, accused Nos.1 to 33, were sent up for trial.
7. The Special Judge framed as many as 58 charges against the accused. A common charge was framed against all the accused for offence punishable under sec
