Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, JJ.
Anand @ Anand Thorat S/O Sh.Gajanan & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
CBI Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.660 of 2009, C/W Criminal Appeal No.510, 338 of 2011, 360 of 2009, 457 of 2009, 414 of 2009, 660 of 2009
Decided On : 04-09-2017
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 [C.A. No. 2/1974] - Section 177 - Territorial jurisdiction - Allegations of Investigating case beyond jurisdiction by Investigating Officer - Accused, Investigating Officer conducting raid in hotel allegedly not falling within his jurisdiction - Trial Court itself in doubt regarding jurisdiction of concerned officer - No clarification as to under which Police station alleged hotel comes - Assistant Director of Prosecution (ADP) not noticing error of jurisdiction after submission of charge sheet by accused, I.O. - ADP certifying that charge sheet met requirements of law - Held, Allegations of lack of jurisdiction, not acceptable.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 3 - Defence witness - Testimony of defence witness examined by one accused can be considered against other accused also, particularly when he has been cross-examined on behalf of other accused.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 3 - Eyewitness - Identity of accused - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police participating in seizure and preparing panchanama and seizure report - Offence pertaining to year 1997 - Witness clearly narrating about identification of accused and manner of their arrest - Identification of accused corroborated by testimony of other witnesses as well as production of accused before Magistrate - Stray admission by witness that he would be unable to identify accused at time of examination-in-chief is not sufficient to discard his testimony or dispute identity of accused.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 3 - [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 255, 258, 468, 471, 53 - Stamp paper scam - Accused allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit stamps - Witnesses clearly narrating that accused instrumental in running entire business - Accused arranging customers also responsible for production, preparation and distribution of stamp papers - Prosecution witnesses clearly narrating distinct role played by accused - Evidence of witnesses clear and unshaken - Production, sale, distribution, receipt of money, acquisition of properties, opening of bank account have all been stated without any hesitation by witnesses - None of statements of witnesses challenged in cross-examination of accused - Statement of witnesses, credible - Conviction, held, proper.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 3 - Stamp paper scam - Accused, employee allegedly dealing in fake and counterfeit stamps - Plea of leaving business immediately on coming to know fact of fraud running contrary to evidence on record - Accused also extending licence thereafter - Alleged business premises continued to stand in his name - Operation of selling fake stamps continued even after statement made by accused in December, 1996 - Accused running business in connivance with other accused stated by witnesses - Magnitude of crime is to extent of Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Crores - Prosecution proving charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction held, proper.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 [C.A. NO. 1/1872] - Section 3 - Testimony of Investigating Officer - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police participating in raid and seizure of counterfeit stamps also preparing mahazar as per direction of Investigating Officer - Held, Absence of evidence of Investigating Officer cannot be reason to discard evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. At the most he can be considered as scribe of mahazar.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 120-B, 217, 218, 201, 221 - Criminal conspiracy - Stamp paper scam - Conspiracy in filing charge sheet - Accused, Investigating Officer allegedly committing omissions and commissions in order to help co-accused - Co-accused not arrayed in FIR but arrayed in charge sheet after conducting further investigation - Accused, I.O. could very well have avoided him, especially when his name not shown in FIR - Charge sheet filed by accused, I.O. is consequence to investigation made by him - Conspiracy of accused, held, not proved.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. NO. 45/1860] - Sections 120-B, 217, 218, 201, 221, 53 - Criminal conspiracy - Stamp paper scam - Allegations against accused, Investigating Officer that all seized stamps not sent to security press for verification in order to help accused persons - Witnesses clearly stating that all seized stamps sent to security press for verification - Officials of security press themselves intimating accused to send one stamp from each sheet for verification since same would reduce amount to be paid for verification - If there was conspiracy then only some of stamps would be sent - Also no evidence regarding inserting genuine stamps by removing counterfeit stamp - Mere non-mentioning of details of seized stamps cannot be sufficient to hold any criminal conspiracy or intention against accused cannot be said that accused, I.O. hatched conspiracy in order to defend accused or charge them for lesser offence - Held, Conspiracy not proved. Conviction unsustainable.
All these appeals arise out of the trial of some of the cases, which came to be known as the infamous “Telgi Stamp Paper Scam”. According to the prosecution – Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’ for brevity) the scam was to an extent of almost Rs.25,000/- Crores (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Crores).
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 to 5 were working for M/s. Citizen Enterprises, which had its office at Jayanagar, Bengaluru and also at Brigade Garden, Church Street, Bengaluru. That accused nos.1 to 5 were staying in a Hotel by name Shalimar, at City Market, Bengaluru, during the year 1996-97. Accused no.6, Abdul Rahim Lad Sab Telgi, is the elder brother of accused no.9, Abdul Kareem Telgi. Accused no.9 was supervising the day-to day affairs of the office of M/s.Citizen Enterprises at Jayanagar and at Brigade Garden, Church Street, Bengaluru. Accused No.7, was the proprietor of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, which had its office at Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Accused No.8, was working as an Inspector of Police in the City Market Police Station during the relevant period of time. Accused no.9 Abdul Karim Telgi, was the kingpin of the stamp paper racket. Accused no.10 was also an employee of M/s. Citizen Enterprises, Accused No.11, was a Doctor who was a close associate of the accused. Accused No.12, was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, City Market Police Station.
3. That Accused No.7 had obtained a stamp vending licence in his name on 06.03.1996. It was thereafter renewed upto 31.03.1998. The licence was to sell non-judicial stamps upto Rs.25,000/-, judicial stamp upto 1,000/- Court fee stamps, copying sheets and Hundi papers. The licence did not permit him to sell any other type of stamps, stamp papers, etc. Accused No.7 opened a proprietary firm in the name of ‘M/s. Citizen Enterpises’ at No.51/22, 3rd Floor, 8th E Main, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and thereafter at No.19/1–56, Church Street, Brigade Gardens, Bengaluru. He was selling counterfeit stamps and forged stamps of all kinds, i.e., Special Adhesive Stamps, Insurance Stamps, Foreign Bill Stamps, Postal Stamps etc., for which he had no licence. He was selling the said stamps with the involvement and conspiracy of the other Accused nos.1 to 5 and 9 and 10 in Bengaluru, through his firm. He had got the Kannada word ‘Karnataka’ printed on the stamp i.e., on the Bill Stamps of Rs.100/- denomination, Share Transfer Stamps of Rs.100/-, Rs.20/-, Rs.50/-, Rs.5/-, Rs.1/- denominations, Foreign Bill Stamps of Rs.20/- denomination, Insurance Stamps of Rs.2/- denomination, Insurance stamps of Rs.1/- denomination, for selling to various organisation in Karnataka. That Accused Nos.1 to 5 along with Accused No.6 and 8, were staying in Hotel Shalimar, at No.127 and 128, N.R. Road, City Market, Bengaluru in Room Nos.101 and 104.
4. On 10.04.1997, the then Police Inspector, City Market Police Station, Bengaluru city, along with other police officials and panchas conducted a raid on the said rooms of Hotel Shalimar. They apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 5 being the employees of M/s. Citizen Enterprises and also Accused No.6, along with two folded newspapers containing the stamps of different denominations, three green color covers containing counterfeit stamps of different denominations, nine covers of Shalimar paints containing stamps of different denominations, two bundle of postal stamps and various other material which were seized.
5. On 10.04.1997 at 8.30 p.m., Accused No.8, took the Accused Nos.1 to 6 to the city market police station and conducted a seizure mahazar. Accused Nos.1 to 5 were kept in the lock up. Accused no.6 was asked to sit outside. The same day Accused Nos.7, 9 and 11, approached Accused Nos.8 and 12 and all of them conspired together for the release of Accused No.6 and for not including him in the FIR, etc. Accused No.8 on receiving an illegal gratification through Accused No.12 from Accused No.9, did not show the
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
