Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
MOHD. MAQSOOD ALAM – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – RESPONDENT
CRL.A. 955, 991 OF 2015, CRL.A. 242, 68 OF 2016
Decided On : 15-06-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Wiqar Ahmed & Mr. Naved Johar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for State with SI Amrik Singh, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Denial of Opportunity for Cross-Examination - Sections 489B, 489C, 120B IPC - 173 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of four appellants for offences under Sections 489B, 489C, and 120B IPC. The prime submission made on behalf of the first and second appellant with regard to denial of opportunity for cross-examination of crucial witnesses led to the setting aside of the impugned judgment and the order on sentence, and the remittance of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of opportunity for cross-examination was a serious cause for concern and emphasized the importance of effective legal aid and assistance in criminal cases. The court also highlighted the responsibility of advocates to conduct themselves responsibly and with accountability, and the need for a better system for regulating their conduct.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of opportunity for cross-examination and the conduct of the advocates representing the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of effective legal aid and assistance, the responsibility of advocates to conduct themselves responsibly and with accountability, and the need for a better system for regulating their conduct.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order on sentence were set aside, and the case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings. The accused persons were directed to appear before the trial court, and the court also directed the Bar Council to take appropriate action regarding the conduct of the advocates involved in the case.
1. These four appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 29.07.2015 and order on sentence dated 30.07.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge-02, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 170/2013 registered on the basis of reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on the basis of evidence collected during investigation of first information report (FIR) No. 28/2013 under Sections 489B, 489C, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) of police station Special Cell, Delhi. The first three appellants were held guilty, as charged, for offences under Sections 489B, 489C and 120B IPC, the last mentioned appellant Mohd. Maqsood Alam having been convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
2. Though the appeals raise a number of contentions, the prime submission made on behalf of the first and second appellant (Mohd. Kamil and Anwar Ali respectively) with regard to denial of opportunity for cross-examination of two crucial witnesses for prosecution during the trial is found sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment, and the order on sentence, and to remit the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law and, for this reason, this Court would refrain from expressing any observations, vis-a-vis, the other contentions that have been urged. At the same time, it must be observed here itself that the role of the Bar in expeditious trial of criminal case through a fair procedure has come up, yet again, in the matter at hand as a serious cause for concern. This would need elaboration.
3. The case for the prosecution, briefly put, is that on the basis of some secret input, action was initiated on 24.06.2013 against the backdrop of DD No. 15 dated 24.06.2013 vide Ex.PW-17/A by sub-inspector Satish Rana (PW-17) of the special cell of Delhi police. In the proceedings that came to be conducted in the wake of such action, in the area of Inter State Bus Terminus (ISBT) at Kashmiri Gate, sometime after 6.30 p.m. on 24.06.2013, the first two appellants namely Mohd. Kamil (A-1) and Anwar Ali (A-2) were apprehended. The police team which participated in the said action had comprised, among others, head constable Ram Gopal (PW-3) and head constable Ashok Kumar (PW-9). It is stated that the police officials saw A-2 receiving, from A-1, a wad of what appeared to be currency notes. After A-1 and A-2 had been apprehended, their searches were taken. It is alleged that A-1 was found having in his possession fake Indian currency notes (FICN) of purported denominations of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- of the total face value of Rs. 3,50,000/- which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/B. Similarly, the search of A-2 is stated to have resulted in recovery of FICN of the purported denomination of Rs. 500/- of the total face value of Rs. 50,000/- which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. The recovered notes when sent to the forensic experts were confirmed to be fake.
4. It is alleged that, during the interrogation, A-1 had revealed the fourth appellant Mohd. Maqsood Alam (A-4) to be the source of fake currency and of he (A-1) having supplied such fake currency procured from Mohd. Maqsood Alam (A-4), amongst others, to the third appellant Razia (A-3). It is stated that the initial efforts to trace out Mohd. Maqsood Alam (A-4) and Razia (A-3), and the others named by A-1 in his disclosure statement, could not be successful. Later, on the basis of some secret information respecting Razia (A-3), she was apprehended in similar action at ISBT Anand Vihar sometime after 4.30 p.m. on 28.07.2013, her search having revealed she being in possession of FICN of the purported denomination of Rs. 1,000/- of the total face value of Rs. 1,00,000/- which were also seized vide Ex.PW-4/B.
5. It may be mentioned here that Mohd. Maqsood Alam (A-4) remained elusive for quite some time and his arrest could not be affected. Against this backdrop, while a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (charge-sheet) against A-
