counterfeit foreign currency case judgement-ahmedabad court

7/31/2019 Counterfeit Foreign Currency Case Judgement-Ahmedabad Court

1/41

SP.C.NO.4/2005 1/41 JUDGMENT

Exh.

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL CBI JUDGE COURT NO.5 AT

MIRZAPUR, AHMEDABAD.

Special Case No.4 of 2005

Central Bureau of Investigation, Gandhinagar.

.....Complainant

VERSUS

(1) Umar Haji Abu Bera

(2) Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani (Case Abated)

(3) Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka (Trial Separated)

.........Accused

Appearances:

1) Shri A.A. Shaikh, Learned Public Prosecutor for

the CBI.

2) Shri H.R. Palejiya, Learned Advocate for the

accused no.1.

JUDGMENT

Case of prosecution:

1. The case of prosecution as unfolded before

this Court is that the complaint was lodged by Shri


2/41


A. Kartikeyan, Accounts Officer, Reserve Bank of

India, Ahmedabad on 04.05.1989 with the

Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad Branch. It is

alleged in the complaint that the RBI received 170

notes of U.K. Pounds in the denomination of 50

pounds each from the Custom Collectorate, Ahmedabad

which were found to be fake as advised by the State

Bank of India, Ahmedabad Branch. It is also alleged

that the said fake currency notes were recovered

from accused Umar Haji Abu Bera, Usman Haji Abdul

Karim Shivani and Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka during the

raid of custom staff at Porbandar, Gujarat on

18/19.05.1985. It is revealed in the investigation

that all these three accused persons entered into a

criminal conspiracy at Porbandar during April'85 to

May'85 for possessing and trafficking the fake

foreign currency as genuine in that area. In

pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Ahmed Haji

Anwar Sunka brought the fake currency notes of

British pound to Porbandar where he transferred the

said currency by selling it to accused Umar Haji Abu

Bera and accused Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani and

also kept some of the currency notes in the house of

Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani from where accused

Ahmed Sunka used to traffic and sell the counterfeit

currency notes of British pound in the market. On

18.05.1985 an information was received by the Custom

Inspector in the office of Assistant Collector,

Customs, Porbandar that Umar Haji Abu Bera is

selling British pounds in the open market and had

received these notes from accused Ahmed Haji Anwar


3/41


Sunka of Madurai who was staying with his maternal

grandfather Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani at

Village Ranavav near Porbandar. On the same day i.e.

on 18.05.1985, a raid was conducted and accused Umar

Haji Abu Bera was found in possession of 10 U.K.

Pounds in the denomination of pound 50 each which

were seized by the Custom staff and accused Umar

Haji Abu Bera was nabbed near Sudama Chowk,

Porbandar. On the night of 18/19.05.1985 a raid was

also conducted at the house of accused Usman Haji

Abdul Karim Shivani and 152 currency notes in the

denomination of pound 50 each bearing the same

serial numbers which were recovered from Umar Haji

Abu Bera, were recovered from the cellar of the

house. In the statement recorded under Section 108

of the Customs Act, accused Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka

accepted to have brought these notes from Madurai

for disposing off the same at Porbandar and

disclosed that out 170 such notes, he had given 18

notes to Umar Haji Abu Bera. As 10 such notes were

recovered from Umar Haji Abu Bera, his house was

raided on 19.05.1985 and eight more notes of pound

50 each having the same serial number identical to

the earlier two recoveries, were recovered and a

formal opinion was obtained from the local State

Bank of India Branch and the said notes were advised

to be fake. The said notes were sent to the Public

Accounts Department, Reserve Bank of India vide

letter dated 14.09.1988 alongwith other foreign

currency notes for realization and the Reserve Bank

of India, in turn, sent the said notes to the


4/41


Foreign Exchange Cell, State Bank of India, Main

Branch, Ahmedabad on 19.09.1988 for realization. The

State Bank of India did not accept these 170 U.K.

currency notes of pound 50 each, as the same were

found to be fake and therefore, the same were

returned to the Public Accounts Department of

Reserve Bank of India on the same day. During the

course of investigation, the said notes were sent to

the Issuing Office, Bank of England, London through

Interpol and Manager Shri David Hobden of the

Issuing Office, Bank of England, London opined that

the said notes were fake and this opinion was

received through Shri Peter Corgon, U.K., DLO, New

Delhi vide Reference OL-42 dated 05.10.1990. During

the course of investigation, the panchnamas, search

warrants, statement recorded under Section 108 of

the Customs Act, telex message of Customs and Custom

Collectorate record, file of Reserve Bank of India

and State Bank of India were seized and the

chargesheet has been filed before the competent

Court for taking cognizance and for trying the

offence punishable under Section 120-B read with

Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court No.5, Ahmedabad (Rural) framed the charges

against accused no.1 Umar Haji Abu Bera and accused

no.2 Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani vide Exh.50 in

Sessions Case No.51/1995. As accused no.3 Ahmed Haji

Anwar Sunka was absconding, the trial against him

had been separated vide order dated 07.07.2001


5/41


passed below Exh.33 in the said sessions case.

Whereas, due to death of accused no.2 Usman Haji

Abdul Karim Shivani, the case against him has been

abated vide order dated 24.04.2006 passed below

Exh.139 by the Special CBI Court No.4 in Special

Case No.4/2005 which is renumbered due to creation

of Special Court for trying the offence investigated

by the CBI.

Oral and Documentary Evidence:

3. As the accused no.1 denied all the

incriminating evidence, in order to bring home the

charge, the prosecution has led the following oral

and documentary evidence in presence of the accused

no.1.

Oral Evidence:

Sr.

No.

PW

No.

Name of the

witness

Status of the witness Exh. No.

1. PW-1 Harichand Nanalal

Chokhawala

Cashier, Reserve Bank

of India, Ahmedabad.

Exh.65.

2. PW-2 Devendrakumar

Dalabhai Gohil

Cashier, Reserve Bank


Exh.67.

3. PW-3 Kartikeyan A.N. Accounts Officer,

Reserve Bank of India,

Ahmedabad.

Exh.71.


6/41


4. PW-4 Girishbhai

Sunderbhai Macwan

Superintendent, Godown

Branch, Custom

Department.

Exh.79.

5. PW-5 Ibrahimkhan

Mohmedkhan Pathan

Panch witness to the

panchnama of search

carried out at

residential premises of

accused Umar Haji Abu

Bera.

Exh.82.

6. PW-6 Basirkhan

Hussainkhan

Pathan


panchnama of search

carried out at

residential premises of

accused Umar Haji Abu

Bera.

Exh.84.

7. PW-7 Jalendu Milaprai

Chhaya

Panch witness. Exh.85.

8. PW-8 Chandrakant

Manmohandas

Parekh

Panch witness. Exh.87.

9. PW-9 Satishbhai

Jayantilal Bhatt

Deputy Manager, Foreign

Exchange Cell, State

Bank of India.

Exh.89.

10. PW-10 Pravinchandra

Kakubhai

Karvadara


panchnama of seizure of

ten currency notes of

U.K. Pound from accused

Umar Haji Abu Bera.

Exh.91.

11. PW-11 Rajendrakumar

Shantilal

Raithatha

Custom Inspector,

Custom and Excise

Department, Porbandar.

Exh.93.


7/41


12. PW-12 Moreshvar Govind

Joshi

In-charge Custom

Superintendent, Custom

and Excise Department,

Porbandar.

Exh.99.

13. PW-13 Brijeshkumar

Prembahadur Varma

Custom Inspector,

Custom and Excise


Exh.101.

14. PW-14 Harishbhai

Valjibhai

Patansha

Witness running the

rationing grain shop at

Memonvad, Porbandar.

Exh.103.

15. PW-15 Mohmedshafi

Gulammemon Bera

Resident of Memonvad,

Porbandar.

Exh.104.

16. PW-16 Rajendrasingh

Ramswarupsingh

Panvar

Addl. Superintendent of

Police, CBI Interpol

Branch, New Delhi.

Exh.114.

17. PW-17 Chhatrasinh

SurajmalsinhVaghela

Head Clerk, Special

Branch, CBI, Ahmedabad.

Exh.132.

18. PW-18 Rupmina Tarangesh

Desai

Assistant Manager,

Reserve Bank of India,

Ahmedabad.

Exh.144.

19. PW-19 Balkishan

Harfulsingh

Sharma

ASI, CBI-SIU-IV, New

Delhi.

Exh.147.

20. PW-20 Hemshankar

Keshavji Vyas

Inspector, Customs


Exh.153.

21. PW-21 Nattharam Kalaram

Macwan

Head Police Constable,

CBI, Ahmedabad.

Exh.160

22. PW-22 Gangaram Shivaji

Shinde

Inspector, ACB

Department, CBI,

Mumbai.

Exh.161.


8/41


23. PW-23 Ram Murti

Rachnaram

Inspector, CBI-SIU(XI) Exh.170.

24. PW-24 Vadakkan MannoorSanku Soman

Sub Inspector, CBI-SIU(XI).

Exh.175.

Documentary Evidence:

Sr.

No.

Exh. No. Description of the document

1. Exh.66 Letter No.PAD(AH) No.1283/7.B/88-89

dated 16.09.1988 addressed to the

Manager, State Bank of India by the

Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public

Accounts Department, Ahmedabad for

sale of confiscated foreign currency

notes. (two sheets)

2. Exh.68 Original complaint of Account Officer,

Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad,

dated 04.05.1989.

3. Exh.69 Original receipt of S.D. Pandya dated

04.05.1989.

4. Exh.72 Letter No.VIII/25-1/CG/86 dated

14.09.1988 addressed to the Manager,

Reserve Bank of India, Public Accounts

Department, Ahmedabad by the

Superintendent of Customs, Godown,

Ahmedabad for realization of forfeited

foreign currency.

5. Exh.73 Original complaint of Account Officer,

Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad,

dated 04.05.1989.


9/41


6. Exh.74 Seizure memo of documents seized from

Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public

Accounts Department, Ahmedabad, dated

22.05.1990.

7. Exh.80 Copy of extract of Godown Register.

8. Exh.81 Letter No.VIII/25-1/CG/86 dated

14.09.1988 for realization of fake

currency notes.

9. Exh.83 Panchnama of recovery of eight notes

of U.K. Pounds, dated 19.05.1985.

10. Exh.86 Panchnama of recovery of 152 notes of

U.K. Pounds, dated 18/19.05.1985.

11. Exh.90 Letter No.MB/P&S/FEX/1344 dated

23.09.1988 addressed to the Manager,

Reserve Bank of India, Public Accounts

Department, Ahmedabad by the Manager,

State Bank of India, P & S Banking

(Foreign Exchange Cell) Division,

Ahmedabad Main Branch.

12. Exh.92 Panchnama of recovery of ten notes of

U.K. Pounds, dated 18.05.1985.

13. Exh.94 Letter dated 18.05.1985 addressed to

the Assistant Collector of Customs

(Anti Smuggling), Jamnagar by the

Inspector of Customs (S.G.), Porbandarintimating about the source

information.

14. Exh.95 Search warrant under Section 105 of

the Customs Act, of accused Usman Haji

Abdul Karim Shivani, dated 18.05.1985.

15. Exh.96 Copy of Inventory of goods lying at

Customs Godown, dated 31.05.1985.


10/41


16. Exh.97 Seizure memo dated 20.07.1990 of

seizure of source report dated

18.05.1985.

17. Exh.100 Search warrant under Section 105 of

the Customs Act, of accused Umar Haji

Abu Bera, dated 18.05.1985.

18. Exh.115 Letter No.483/3/7/89-SIU(XI) dated

05.02.1990 addressed to the Assistant

Director, Interpol Wing, Central

Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi by

the Superintendent of Police,

CBI:SIU(XI), New Delhi regardingforwarding of forged U.K. Pounds for

expert opinion.

19. Exh.116 Pound No.A-17-230957 (80 pounds).

20. Exh.117 Pound No.A-57-231709 (1 pound).








28. Exh.125 Opinion / Report of Mr. David Hobden

of Bank of England, London, dated

01.08.1990.


11/41



the Inspector, CBI, New Delhi by the

Drugs Liaison Officer, HM Customs and

Excise, Attached - British High

Commission, New Delhi.

30. Exh.130 Forwarding letter no.483/3/7/89/SIU

(XI) dated 05.02.1990 addressed to the

Superintendent of Police, CBI,

SIU(XI), New Delhi by the Assistant

Director, CBI Interpol, New Delhi.

31. Exh.133 Letter No.CR/I/58/89/ABD/C-28 dated

02.08.1989 addressed to Shri H.N.Sambhariya, DIG of Police, CBI, Bombay

by Shri H.P. Singh, Superintendent of

Police, CBI, Ahmedabad.

32. Exh.149

Exh.150

Exh.151

Certified copy of entry dated

21.12.1989 on page no.22 of Malkhana

Register and endorsement thereof.

33. Exh.154 Seizure Memo of documents seized fromInspector, Customs by Inspector, CBI,

dated 18.11.1990.

34. Exh.162 Acknowledgment of PI, CBI, Bombay

dated 09.08.1989 regarding receipt of

one confidential cover bearing no.C-28

received from the Superintendent of

Police, CBI, Ahmedabad Branch.

35. Exh.163 Letter dated 09.08.1989 addressed tothe In-charge Malkhana, CBI, ACB,

Bombay by the PI, CBI, Bombay

regarding sending of one sealed cover

containing 170 pieces of 50 U.K. Pound

each (fake).

36. Exh.164 Acknowledgment of PI, CBI, ACB, Bombay

dated 01.09.1989 regarding receipt of

one sealed cover containing 170 pieces

of 50 U.K. Pound each from Malkhana,

CBI, Bombay.


12/41


37. Exh.165 Letter No.1/46/89/BR/ABD/C-4774 dated

31.08.1989 addressed to the Dy.

Inspector General of Police, SIC

(III), CBI, New Delhi by the DIG of

Police, CBI, Bombay Region.

38. Exh.171 Seizure memo dated 15.11.1990 for

seizure of documents from the Manager,

Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad by

Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI, New

Delhi.

39. Exh.172 Seizure Memo of documents seized from

Customs Officer by Inspector, CBI,dated 13.10.1991.

40. Exh.176 Copy of FIR being RC-7/89-SIU(XI)

dated 23.11.1989.


the Sub Inspector of Police, CBI, New

Delhi by the Dy. Manager, State Bank


42. Exh.178 Seizure Memo dated 18.12.1989 of the

documents seized from the Collector,

Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad.

43. Exh.179 Letter No.CR/1/58/89/450 dated

15.01.1990 addressed to the

Superintendent of Police, CBI, New

Delhi by the Superintendent of Police,CBI, Ahmedabad.

44. Exh.180 Seizure memo dated 21.05.1990 of the

documents seized from D.G.M., State

Bank of India, Ahmedabad Main Branch.

Except this, no other oral or documentary

evidence is adduced by the prosecution in respect of

the charges levelled against the accused. The


13/41


defence has not examined any witness in support of

his case.

4. The further statement of the accused no.1

u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded, wherein the

accused was questioned on the incriminating

circumstances appearing in the evidence, which he

denied in toto. The accused no.1 has also filed the

written statement on the same day. As per his say,

the present case is false. He stated that prior to

30 years of the incident in question, the accused

no.1 was serving in the showroom of Mafatlal, where

Customs Inspector Shri Raithatha was frequently

visiting. During his visit, he used to ask as to

which parties were dealing in the foreign clothes.

As the accused no.1 shown ignorance, Shri Raithatha

took his signatures on the blank papers and framed

him in this false case.

Submissions of Prosecution:

5. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri A.A. Shaikh

appearing for the CBI has urged that on the

complaint made by Shri A. Kartikeyan, Accounts

Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad, the case

was registered with the CBI on 23.11.1989 against

Umar Haji Abu Bera, Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani

and Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka for the offences

punishable under Section 489(B) and 489(C) read with

Section 120-B of I.P.C. The investigation was

carried out by the CBI-SIU(XI), New Delhi and after


14/41


completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was

filed against all the three accused. During the

course of trial, accused Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka

remain absent for a long time and therefore, non-

bailable warrant was issued against him, but despite

best efforts of the CBI, he could not be served and

therefore, the notice was issued to the surety who

also could not produce accused Ahmed Haji Anwar

Sunka and thereafter, the case of the said accused

was separated. The Learned Public Prosecutor further

submitted that the charge (Exh.50) was framed

against the remaining two accused and during the

trial, accused Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani

expired and the case against him was ordered to be

abated vide order passed below Exh.139. Taking this

Court through the oral and documentary evidence, the

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in all, 18

counterfeit pounds of 50 denomination were recovered

from accused Umar Haji Abu Bera. According to him,

looking to the serial numbers of the fake pounds

mentioned in the panchnama of seizure of ten fake

notes of pounds (Exh.92), it can be seen that the

same serial numbers were printed on more than one

note and therefore, it can be presumed that accused

Umar Haji Abu Bera was having sufficient knowledge

about the counterfeit pounds and moreover, the

accused was caught in the public place by the

Customs Inspectors in presence of two independent

panch witnesses. He further submitted that the

seized pounds were sent by the CBI Interpol for the

opinion through British High Commission and the said


15/41


pounds were opined to be fake. It is urged by the

Learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has

successfully proved the charges levelled against the

accused by cogent evidence and he urged to hold the

him guilty for the aforesaid offences.

In support of his submissions, the Learned

Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the

following authorities.

(1) A.N. Venkatesh V/s. State of Karnataka, 2005

(3) Crimes 231 (SC).

(2) Kochakkadam Kunjuvaveed Thomas V/s. D.R. Gohil,

Supdt. Of Customs, II (2002) CCR 177.

(3) Manohar Amrut Satpudke V/s. The State of

Maharashtra, 2001 Cr.L.J. 4355.

(4) State Govt. of NCT Delhi V/s. Sunil, 2001

Cr.L.J. 504.

(5) Gulam Hussain Shaikh Chougule V/s. S. Reynolds,

Suptd. Of Customs, Marmgoa, 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC)

746.

(6) Bhana Khalpa Bhai Patel V/s. Assistant

Collector of Customs, I (1998) CCR 23 (SC).

(7) Rifakatalikhan V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1993

Cr.L.J. 3844.

(8) State of Gujarat V/s. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi,

AIR 1985 SC 1092.

(9) K. Hasim V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 Cr.L.J.

143 (SC).


16/41


Submissions by Defence:

6. Learned Advocate Shri H.R. Palejiya

appearing for the accused submitted that on

18.05.1985 the Customs Department, Porbandar seized

the currency notes of U.K. pound from the accused

and after two years i.e. in the year 1987, these

notes of U.K. pounds were sent to the Reserve Bank

of India, Ahmedabad by the Customs Department,

Porbandar. The Reserve Bank of India sent the said

pounds to State Bank of India, Ahmedabad and the

said pounds were found to be fake and bogus and the

State Bank of India intimated about the said fake

pounds to the Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad and

Shri A.N. Kartikeyan, Accountant, RBI lodged a

complaint with the CBI on 04.05.1989. He submitted

that Section 489-C of I.P.C. provides for the

possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes

or bank notes. Section 489-C says that if any person

possesses any forged or counterfeit currency,

knowing reason to believe that the same are forged

and counterfeit and intends to use the same, he

commits an offence punishable under this Section.

According to the Learned Advocate, the accused must

know about the forged and counterfeit currency and

in absence of this knowledge, it can be said that no

offence is committed by the person. For this

submission, Learned Advocate Shri Palejiya placed

reliance on the case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1705

and in the case of Karunakaran Nadar V/s. State


17/41


reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 3748. He further submitted

that for a long time the original pounds were not

available and no signature of accused or seizing

officer was taken on the original pounds and the

said pounds were with the different authority for a

long time and it is not appropriate to believe that

these are the same pounds which were seized by the

Customs Department, Porbandar. He submitted that

except the panch witnesses, the other witnesses are

the government officers who did not find, on the

first glance, the said pounds to be fake one. He

further submitted that PW-11 Shri Raithatha deposed

during his cross-examination that when the said

notes of pound were seized, they could not recognize

the same to be fake and therefore, no sealing

process was done. Likewise, PW-3 also, in his

deposition, deposed that for two days the said

currency notes were lying with the Reserve Bank of

India and they did not find the same as fake. He

further deposed that on 16.09.1988 they sent the

currency notes to the State Bank of India for

realization. PW-18 also agreed in her deposition

that they could not find the currency kept in the

cover to be fake. Learned Advocate submitted that

the witnesses examined by the prosecution could not

say whether the said seized currency were fake or

not. Moreover, though the said currency were seized

in the year 1985, it reached to the State Bank of

India in 1988 and during these three years the

Customs Inspectors, Superintendent and Reserve Bank

of India Officers could not find the said pound as


18/41


fake and bogus. On all these counts, Learned

Advocate for the accused urged the Court to give

benefit of doubt to the accused.

Issues:

7. After minutely examining the evidence, oral

and documentary, adduced by the prosecution and

after hearing Learned Advocates for the parties and

considering the written submissions made, the

following issues arise for determination of this

Court.

(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused persons

hatched a criminal conspiracy at Porbandar

during the period from April'85 to May'85

for possessing and trafficking the fake

foreign currency as genuine in that area?


reasonable doubt that the accused no.1, as a

part of conspiracy or otherwise, received

the fake currency notes of British Pound

from the accused no.3 knowing a reason to

believe the same to be forged and

counterfeit?


reasonable doubt that the accused no.1, as a

part of conspiracy or in pursuance to the


19/41


conspiracy hatched during the period from

April'85 to May'85, was found in possession

of fake currency notes of British Pound

knowing a reason to believe the same to be

forged and counterfeit with an intention to

use the same as genuine?

(4) What order?

8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(1) In Negative.

(2) In Negative.

(3) In Negative.

(4) As per final order.

Reasonings:

9. PW-1, Shri Harichand Nanalal Chokhawala has

been examined by the prosecution at Exh.65. This

witness was serving as Cashier in Reserve Bank of

India, Ahmedabad in the year 1988 and at that time,

Smt. R.T. Desai was working as Manager and Shri

Kartikeyan was working as Accountant in the bank.

This witness deposed that the Reserve Bank of India

was dealing in foreign currency received from the

government offices and they used to send the foreign

currency to the State Bank of India, Main Branch for

exchange. This witness was given a letter with one

sealed cover by Smt. R.T. Desai, Manager to handover

the same to the State Bank of India, Foreign


20/41


Exchange and this witness handed over the said

letter with sealed cover containing 170 fake pounds

to Shri Satishbhai Bhatt of State Bank of India.

10. PW-2, Shri Devendrakumar Dalabhai Gohil -

Cashier, Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad has been

examined at Exh.67. This witness testified that he

had been given a letter with one sealed cover by

Shri Kartikeyan, Accountant in the Reserve Bank of

India to handover the same to the CBI and

accordingly, this witness handed over the said

letter with the sealed cover to the CBI on

04.05.1989.

11. PW-3, Shri A.N. Kartikeyan - Accountant,

Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad has been examined

at Exh.71. This witness testified that the bank had

received 170 pounds from the Customs Department on

14.09.1988 which were sent in a sealed cover to the

State Bank of India for exchange as Reserve Bank of

India was not dealing in exchange of foreign

currency and the said currency notes were opined to

be fake and therefore, as per the direction of the

officers of this department, this witness lodged a

complaint with Superintendent of Police, CBI,

Ahmedabad on 04.05.1989 and said currency notes were

sent with the complaint written on the letter pad of

the Reserve Bank of India. When this witness was

recalled by the Court under Section 311 of the

Cr.P.C., he identified the pounds produced vide

Exh.116, Exh.117 and Exh.118 and also the pounds


21/41


Exh.119 to Exh.124 which were sent by this witness

with his complaint.

12. PW-4, Shri Girishbhai Sunderbhai Macwan -

Superintendent of Godown, Customs Department, has

been examined at Exh.79. This witness has deposed

that in any case, when the foreign currency notes

are seized by the Customs as muddamal, the same are

kept in godown after making an entry in the

register. This witness has testified that in the

Godown Register, at serial no.33, an entry has been

made of receipt of 170 pound and currency notes

seized from accused Umar Haji Abu Bera. After making

an entry in the register on 14.09.1988, the said

pounds were sent to the Reserve Bank of India

alongwith a letter as per the practice prevailing in

the Customs Department. On recalling this witness

under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., he identified 170

pounds produced before the Court vide Exh.116 to

Exh.124 as muddamal articles, entry of which has

been made in the Register at serial no.33/85

(Exh.80)

13. PW-5, Ibrahimkhan Mohmedkhan Pathan and PW-

6, Basirkhan Hussainkhan Pathan are the panch

witnesses to the panchnama of search carried out at

residential premises of accused Umar Haji Abu Bera

(Exh.83). Both these witnesses have not supported

the case of prosecution and have turned hostile to

the case of prosecution.


22/41


14. PW-7, Shri Jalendu Milaprai Chhaya and PW-8,

Shri Chandrakant Manmohandas Parekh have been

examined respectively at Exh.85 and Exh.87 to prove

the charges leveled against accused Usman Haji Abdul

Karim Shivani, who has died and the case against

whom has been abated. Both these witnesses have not

supported the case of prosecution and turned

hostile.

15. PW-9, Shri Satishbhai Jayantilal Bhatt

working as Dy. Manager, Foreign Exchange Cell, State

Bank of India, is examined at Exh.89. This witness

has testified that the SBI was dealing in the

foreign exchange. He identified the letter Exh.66

sent by the Reserve Bank of India to his bank with

currency of 173 pounds of 50 denomination, out of

which three pounds were genuine and for the said

three pounds, a banker cheque in the name of RBI was

prepared and for the remaining 170, an endorsement

was made by him on the letter on 19.09.1988 as the

currency notes of 170 pounds were fake and it could

be identified by him from the quality of paper and

from the numbers which were same in three sets. On

recalling this witness under Section 311 of the

Cr.P.C., he identified 170 pounds produced before

the Court vide Exh.116 to Exh.124 as muddamal which

were sent with the letter Exh.66.

16. PW-10, Shri Pravinchandra Kakubhai Karvadara

is examined at Exh.91, who is a panch witness in

whose presence ten currency notes of U.K. Pound were


23/41


seized from accused Umar Haji Abu Bera. This witness

has fully supported the version of panchnama Exh.92

and has identified the pounds seized from the

accused.

17. PW-11, Shri Rajendrakumar Shantilal

Raithatha - Customs Inspector, Porbandar has been

examined at Exh.93. He has testified that on

18.05.1985, an information was received by him and

by Shri B.K. Kulshrestha that accused Umar Haji Abu

Bera and Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka were possessing 8 to

9 pound in the denomination of 50 each and they

reported to their superior officer i.e.

Superintendent and as per the direction of the

superior officer, this witness went to Sudama Chowk,

Porbandar alongwith Shri Kulshrestha, Inspector Shri

K.A. Atalia, Sipoy and two panchas and in presence

of panchas, accused Umar Haji Abu Bera was stopped

and on his personal search, ten currency notes in

the denomination of 50 pounds kept in the marriage

invitation card in his pocket were recovered. The

said notes were seized under the panchnama Exh.92.

This witness further deposed that one Ahmed Haji

Anwar Sunka was also found involved and on search of

his house, 152 currency notes of pounds were seized

under the panchnama Exh.86. He further testified

that in all 170 notes of pounds seized from the

accused, were deposited in the Custom Godown vide

receipt Mark-62/21 duly signed by this witness and

In-charge Custom Godown. This witness has been

recalled under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and he


24/41


identified the muddamal pounds produced before the

Court vide Exh.122 to Exh.124 which were seized

under the panchnama.

18. PW-12, Shri Moreshvar Govind Joshi - In-

charge Superintendent at Porbandar, has been

examined at Exh.99, who has deposed that he received

a written information from Inspector Shri Raithatha

and Shri Kulshreshth that accused Umar Haji Abu Bera

and Usman Haji were possessing the fake pound. He

also deposed that the search warrant Exh.95 was is

sued by him and the statements of Umar Haji Abu

Bera, Usman Haji Abdul Karim Shivani and Ahmed Haji

Anwar Sunka were recorded in his present.

Subsequently, this witness was recalled and he

identified the muddamal pounds Exh.116 to Exh.124 as

the same which were deposited in the custom godown.

19. PW-13, Shri Brijeshkumar Prembahadur Varma

has been examined at Exh.101. On 18.05.1985 this

witness was serving as Custom Inspector at

Porbandar. He testified that Inspector Shri

Rajendrakumar Raithatha and he himself received an

information that Umar Haji Abu Bera and Ahmed Haji

Anwar Sunka were illegally dealing in British pound.

He further testified that ten notes of U.K. pounds

of 50 denomination were recovered from personal

search of Umar Haji Abu Bera which were seized under

the panchnama Exh.92. He deposed that the search of

house of Umar Haji was also conducted and during the

search, eight notes of pounds of 50 denomination


25/41


were found from the wooden cupboard which were

seized for further investigation. This witness has

been recalled under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and

he identified the muddamal pounds produced before

the Court vide Exh.119 to Exh.121 which were seized

under the panchnama Exh.83.

20. PW-14, Shri Harishbhai Valjibhai Patansha,

who was running a Rationing Gran Shop at Memonwad,

Porbandar, has been examined at Exh.103. He has

deposed specifically that accused Umar Haji Abu Bera

was residing at Memonwad, Porbandar from where eight

fake pounds of 50 denomination were seized under the

panchnama Exh.83.

21. PW-15, Mohmedshafi Gulammemon Bera -

resident of Memonwad, Porbandar, is examined at

Exh.104 to prove that the accused Umar Haji Abu Bera

was residing at Memonwad, but he has not supported

the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

22. PW-16, Shri Rajendrasingh Ramswarupsingh

Panvar, who was serving in CBI Interpol Branch, New

Delhi, is examined at Exh.114. He testified that

Inspector, CBI handed over him a letter and 170 U.K.

Pounds which were to be sent to the concerned U.K.

authority for their examination and opinion. He

further testified that the said pounds were sent

through the British Embassy for examination on

12.07.1990 and the pounds were handed over to Peter

Cargon, Drug Liaison Officer of British High


26/41


Commission. The opinion regarding the said 170 U.K.

pounds given by David Hobden of Bank of England,

London was received and the said opinion and 170

notes of pound of 50 denomination were sent to the

CBI.

23. PW-17, Shri Chhatrasinh Surajmalsinh

Vaghela, who was serving as Head Clerk in Special

Branch CBI, Ahmedabad is examined at Exh.132. He

testified that a written complaint (Exh.68) and a

sealed cover containing 170 notes of pound were sent

by the Reserve Bank of India, Ahmedabad vide a

forwarding letter addressed to Shri Pandya, Dy.

S.P., CBI who handed over to this witness the said

170 notes of pound to keep in custody. He further

testified that the currency notes were sent to the

DIG, Mumbai vide letter dated 02.08.1989 (Exh.133)

and he identified the pounds produced vide Exh.116

to Exh.124.

24. PW-18, Smt. Rupmina Tarangesh Desai, who was

serving as Assistant Manager in Reserve Bank of

India, Ahmedabad, has been examined at Exh.144. She

identified the letter dated 14.09.1988 (Exh.72)

received from the Customs Superintendent alongwith

sealed cover which was opened in the presence of

this witness and also in the presence of Manager

Shri Kartikeyan and Cashier Shri Chokhawala at the

instruction of Manager. On opening the said sealed

cover, 170 notes of U.K. pounds were found as

counted by the Cashier and the said cover was sealed


27/41


again and sent to the State Bank of India with

letter dated 16.09.1988 (Exh.66) and the Manager,

State Bank of India, P & S Banking (Foreign Exchange

Cell) Division, Ahmedabad Main Branch returned the

said pounds in a cover vide letter dated 23.09.1988

(Exh.90) and the said cover was kept in the safe

custody.

25. PW-19, Shri Balkishan Harfulsingh Sharma is

examined at Exh.147. In the year 1989, this witness

was serving as ASI, CBI-SIU(XI) and was In-charge of

Malkhana. He testified that on 21.12.1989 170 notes

of pound of 50 denomination were handed over to him

by Inspector Shri Soman for keeping it in the

malkhana. This witness made an entry of the said

pounds in the register on page-22 (Exh.149). He

further deposed that vide entry dated 05.02.1990

made on page-2 in the register, the said muddamal

pounds were sent to the Interpol and on receipt of

the muddamal from the Interpol, an entry was made on

09.10.1990.

26. PW-20, Shri Hemshankar Keshavji Vyas, who

was serving as Inspector in Customs Department, has

been examined vide Exh.153. He deposed that he

handed over the documents required by the CBI vide

seizure memo dated 18.11.1990 (Exh.154).

27. PW-21, Shri Nattharam Kalaram Macwan was

serving as Head Constable in CBI, Ahmedabad. This

witness, in his deposition at Exh.160, has deposed


28/41


that on 08.08.1989 he was handed over a letter and a

sealed packet by Superintendent of Police and the

same was to be sent to the Office of DIG, Mumbai and

on 09.08.1989 this witness handed over the said

letter and sealed packet to Inspector Shri Shinde in

the office of DIG, Mumbai. He also produced a copy

of dispatch register in which the entry for the same

was made.

28. PW-22, Shri Gangaram Shivaji Shinde, who was

serving as Inspector in CBI, Mumbai in ACB

Department has been examined at Exh.161. He

testified that Shri Nattharam Macwan, Head

Constable, CBI, Ahmedabad handed over one sealed

packet which was accepted by this witness and a

receipt was given to him. He further testified that

as per the instruction of DIG, the said sealed

packet was sent to the Malkhana alongwith the letter

for the safe custody and on 01.09.1989 the said

packet was sent to other branch of CBI for further

investigation. He testified that as per the opinion

of CBI, Ahmedabad, the investigation at interstate

and international level was necessary by the Delhi

Office which was accepted by the DIG, Mumbai and

therefore, the said packet was sent to the CBI

Office at Delhi. He further testified that the said

packet was in a sealed condition since it was

deposited in Malkhana till it was sent at Delhi.

29. PW-23, Shri Ram Murti Rachnaram, who was

serving as Inspector in CBI-SIU(XI), has been


29/41


examined by the prosecution at Exh.170. The

investigation of the case was handed over to this

witness, but the chargesheet was filed by Shri

Saroha. He identified the source report Exh.97,

seizure memo at Exh.171 and Exh.172.

30. PW-24, Shri Vadakkan Mannoor Sanku Soman,

who was serving as Sub Inspector, CBI-SIU(XI), has

been examined at Exh.175. He testified that the case

was registered with their branch and the

investigation was handed over to this witness. He

recorded the statements of witnesses and seized

relevant documents. He testified that during the

course of investigation, the sealed packet

containing the counterfeit currency notes of pound

was collected by him and the said currency notes

were verified and deposited in Malkhana.

31. At the outset, it requires to be noted that

the accused no.1 is facing the charge for the

offences punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of

I.P.C. inasmuch as the accused no.1 was found to be

in possession of 18 currency notes of U.K. pound in

the denomination of 50 each as per the recovery

panchnamas Exh.83 and Exh.92 drawn on 19.05.1985 and

18.05.1985 respectively. In order to prove the fact

that the said 18 notes of U.K. pound are fake, the

prosecution has relied upon the opinion of Mr. David

Hobden of Bank of England, London, dated 01.08.1990.

On reading of the said report, it seems that Mr.

David Hobden examined Exh.PJC/1, PJC/2 and PJC/3 and


30/41


opined that the things in the said exhibits are not

genuine currency notes. But, the prosecution has

failed to lead the evidence as to contents of the

said exhibit. In the said opinion itself, nowhere it

is mentioned that the said exhibit contains the said

18 notes of U.K. pound in the denomination of 50

which were recovered under the panchnamas Exh.83 and

Exh.92. In other words, no inference can be drawn to

the effect that Exh.PJC/1 to PJC/3 or any of its

exhibit contained the fake notes which were

recovered as per the said recovery panchnamas. So,

prima facie there is no evidence led by the

prosecution to prove that Mr. David Hobden of Bank

of England at London was provided with the notes

recovered as per the panchnamas at Exh.83 and

Exh.92. In fact, the prosecution case collapses at

this stage only. However, looking to the seriousness

of the offence, it is desirable to see whether the

prosecution succeeds in proving the charge against

the accused or not.

32. Before the case is taken on merits, it is

required to be noted that the Superintendent of

Customs Shri M.G. Joshi (PW-12) recorded the

statement of accused no.1 under the provisions of

Section 108 of the Customs Act which is produced at

list Exh.62/7, admissibility of which has been

objected by the defence side and therefore, the same

was not admitted into the evidence by the then

Presiding Officer and the issue was kept open for

the decision at the time of argument. On this issue,


31/41


this Court heard the arguments of both the sides and

minutely examined the statement recorded by PW-12

under Section 108 of the Customs Act and also the

principles laid down in the case of Kochakkadam

Kunjuvaveed Thomas (Supra), Gulam Hussain Shaikh

Chougule (Supra) and Bhana Khalpa Bhai Patel

(Supra). From the oral evidence of PW-11 Shri

Raithatha and PW-12 Shri M.G. Joshi, it can be

inferred that the statement recorded under Section

108 of Customs Act was without threat and

inducement, but both these witnesses have failed to

explain the relevant provisions of law to the

accused no.1 who gave the said statement. Not only

that, the said statement does not disclose the

number of fake notes of pound as recorded in the

panchnama. Similarly, while recording the said

statement by PW-12, he did not explain to the

accused no.1 about the relevant provisions of law

viz. the provisions of FERA and / or IPC so as to

use the said statement against the accused no.1 in

the present case. Since the Learned Advocate for the

accused no.1 has not raised any objection so as to

decline its admissibility into evidence, keeping in

mind the principles laid down in the cases cited

hereinabove, the statement recorded by PW-12 under

Section 108 of the Customs Act is ordered to be

admitted into evidence and the same is exhibited as

Exh.210. Now, it is the right time to decide the

issue nos.1 to 3.


32/41


Issue No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused persons

hatched a criminal conspiracy at

Porbandar during the period from April'85

to May'85 for possessing and trafficking

the fake foreign currency as genuine in

that area?

33. This Court is also fully aware of the well

laid down principles in the catena of judgments and

more particularly the latest judgment delivered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of

Delhi V/s. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru reported in

2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1715 (Parliament

Attack Case) on the point of criminal conspiracy

vide Section 120-A and 120-B of I.P.C. The

conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is

impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same.

The offence can only be proved largely from the

inferences drawn from the acts or illegal omission

committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a

common design. To establish a charge of conspiracy,

knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act

or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.

Similarly, When the ultimate offence consists of a

chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the

prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge

of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the

knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long

as it is known that the collaborator would put the

goods or services to an unlawful use.


33/41


34. Similarly, mere leveling the charge of

conspiracy without mentioning how, where, when and

which of the conspirators hatched the criminal

conspiracy and for what purpose or circumstances

warranting an inference of existence of conspiracy

is not enough to bring the present persons to face

the trial in the criminal court. The prosecution

should make out the case against the accused

persons. One cannot have the construction of a fine

superstructure without foundation. Similarly, the

provisions contained in Section 120-B applies to

those who are the members of conspiracy during its

continuation. In other words, the conspiracy has to

be treated as continuing offence and whoever is

party to the conspiracy during the period for which

he is charged is liable under this Section.

35. In the instant case, there is a specific

allegation against the accused persons that they

hatched a criminal conspiracy at Porbandar during

the period from April, 1985 to May, 1985 for

possessing and trafficking the fake foreign currency

notes as genuine in that area. The prosecution has

examined in all 24 witnesses to prove the charge of

conspiracy and other offences, but none of the

witnesses could testify as to when, where and how

the conspiracy was hatched to possess the fake

currency notes. On the contrary, it is evident from

the evidence of all the witnesses that nobody knew

for about four years that the currency notes were


34/41


fake and counterfeit. Similarly, there is nothing in

the statement of the accused no.1 recorded under

Section 108 of the Customs Act to infer that he

entered into a criminal conspiracy with other

accused persons and he was party to the said

conspiracy during the said period. Under the

circumstances, there is no iota of evidence to infer

about the existence of the conspiracy during the

said period and therefore, the Court is left with no

option except to answer the issue no.1 in negative.


reasonable doubt that the accused no.1,

as a part of conspiracy or otherwise,

received the fake currency notes of

British Pound from the accused no.3

knowing a reason to believe the same to

be forged and counterfeit?

AND


reasonable doubt that the accused no.1,

as a part of conspiracy or in pursuance

to the conspiracy hatched during the

period from April'85 to May'85, was

found in possession of fake currency

notes of British Pound knowing a reason

to believe the same to be forged and

counterfeit with an intention to use the

same as genuine?


35/41


36. Since the issue nos.2 and 3 are

interrelated, for the sake of brevity and

convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and

findings, it would be appropriate to discuss and

decide the issue nos.2 and 3 together.

37. As is evident from the evidence on record,

18 fake notes of pound were recovered from accused

no.1 on 18.05.1985 and 19.05.1985. After recovery of

the said 18 notes of pound, PW-11 Shri Raithatha did

not seal the said seized pound and further he did

not take the signature of any panch or accused on

the seizure memo. The said witness also admitted

that after recovery of the said notes of pound, he

did not deposit the same in the godown for about 14

days. So, it means that the said seized fake 18

notes of pound remained with PW-11 for 14 days in

unsealed condition and further, without preparing

the seizure report. It also appears from the

evidence adduced by the prosecution, more

particularly, the letter dated 13.09.1988 addressed

to the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public

Accounts Department, Ahmedabad by the Superintendent

of Customs, Godown (Exh.72) that the said 18 notes

plus 152 foreign currency notes of Bank of England

were confiscated by the Customs Department alongwith

other foreign currency and were sent to the Reserve

Bank of India for realization of counterfeit foreign

currency. Vide letter dated 23.09.1988 (Exh.90) the

State Bank of India informed the Manager, Reserve

Bank of India that the said 170 notes of pound were


36/41


found to be fake and therefore, the same were

returned back unaccepted for realization. Till this

moment right from the recovery of said currency

notes of pound on 18.05.1985, nobody knew that the

said 170 notes were fake or counterfeit. After

receipt of the said fake notes of pound, Shri

Kartikeyan A.N, Account Officer, Reserve Bank of

India, Ahmedabad (PW-3) addressed a letter (Exh.73)

to the CBI, Ahmedabad on 04.05.1989, seeking advise

on the outcome of investigation in respect of the

said 170 pieces of U.K. pound in the denomination of

50 each. Significantly, all the time the fake

foreign currency notes at Exh.116 to Exh.124 moved

from one office to another office and also from one

authority to another authority in open condition.

Under the circumstances, the recovery / seizure

proceeding carried out by PW-11 Shri Raithatha

becomes doubtful and therefore, no reliance can be

placed on such seizure and recovery proceeding so as

to infer that the accused was found in possession of

the said 18 fake notes of pound as alleged.

Admittedly, the officers of Customs Department could

not allege that the currency notes found in the

possession of the accused no.1 were counterfeit

notes. Not only that, various officers who testified

before the Court, in terms, stated that no one could

form a definite opinion that the said notes were

fake or counterfeit.

38. In case of Mohd. Yasin V/s. State of U.P.

reported in 1997 Cr.L.J. 3188, the Allahabad High


37/41


Court observed that, from the evidence of Jagdish

Kumar Agarwal, P.W.3 and Dr. Virendra Kumar P.W.2,

it appears that they suspected about the genuineness

of the said notes after inspecting it and in order

to get confirmation, they consulted with P.W.4. In

both Sections, namely, Sections 489-B and 489-C,

I.P.C. words knowing or having reason to believe

the same to be forged or counterfeit note have been

commonly used.

In the case of M. Mammutti V/s. State of

Karnataka reported inAIR 1979 SC 1705, it has been

held that presumption of knowledge from mere

possession can only be drawn if the notes were

apparently counterfeit. In the case on hand, it is

not so because the disputed fake notes seized by the

Customs Officers were not found to be counterfeit or

fake and therefore, they proceeded for forfeiture

thereof. If at all there had been any doubt in the

mind of Customs Officers, they would not have

forfeited the fake notes. PW-11 Shri Raithatha, in

terms, admitted in his cross-examination in para-7

that during the course of investigation, he found

that accused Usman Haji did not know about the

disputed notes. Even in the statement of accused

no.1 vide Exh.210 recorded under Section 108 of the

Customs Act, he specifically disclosed that he

received the said notes of pound from one Ahmed

Haji Anwar for the purpose of selling the same.

Nowhere it is stated by the accused no.1 in his

statement Exh.210 that he had knowledge about the


38/41


currency notes in question being fake or

counterfeit. Under Section 489-B of I.P.C., the

burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the

time when the accused was using or passing the note,

he knew that it was a forged one. The mere

possession of it by him does not shift the burden to

the accused to prove his innocent possession of the

forged note. Similarly, under Section 489-C, it is

to be proved that the accused intended to use the

forged or counterfeit currency note as genuine or it

might be used as genuine. It is for the prosecution

to prove the circumstances which would irresistibly

lead to the conclusion that the accused had the

intention to introduce surreptitiously the fake note

in the public. So, it is the legal duty of the

prosecution to prove that the accused no.1 was

possessing the fake currency notes or had the reason

to believe that the currency notes were forged and

counterfeit. No doubt, necessary knowledge can be

presumed from the circumstances of the case, but the

existence of such circumstances is also the

requirement of law. As discussed hereinabove, the

officers belonging to the different departments had

no knowledge or they could not find the notes in

question as fake or counterfeit at the relevant

time. Similarly, there is no evidence led by the

prosecution that the accused no.1 had such knowledge

and with such knowledge, he introduced the fake

notes as genuine in the public. Except recovery of

currency notes as per the panchnamas Exh.83 and

Exh.92, there is no iota of evidence, either oral or


39/41


documentary or circumstantial, to infer that the

accused no.1 has any such knowledge as required

under Section 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C. Thus, the

prosecution has failed to prove the basic

ingredients of Section 489-B and 489-C of I.P.C.

39. Now, it is right to consider the rulings

cited at bar by the Learned Public Prosecutor. In

case of A.N. Venkatesh (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court

held that by virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence

Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant,

if such conduct influences or is influenced by any

fact in issue or relevant fact. The Hon'ble Apex

Court further observed therein that even if we hold

that the disclosure statement made by the accused

appellant is not admissible under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8.

In the instant case, there is no such

evidence on record so as to examine the case in the

light of the principles laid down in the above said

case. Moreover, the statement recorded of the

accused no.1 under Section 108 of the Customs Act

does not disclose any such conduct so as to infer

that the accused had any knowledge about the notes

being fake or counterfeit.

In case of Manohar Amrut Satpudke (Supra),

the Bombay High Court while appreciating the

evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act, has observed that merely because the panchas do


40/41


not support the disclosure, the fact cannot be

disbelieved and the statement is not required by the

law to be recorded in presence of panchas and the

Bombay High Court held therein that the prosecution

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case on hand, both the panchas to the

panchnama Exh.83 have turned hostile and not

supported the case of prosecution. Even it is

assumed that there was a recovery of fake currency

notes from the house of accused no.1, but the

prosecution has failed to prove its case on the

other aspect of the matter and therefore, the said

authorities relied upon by the Learned Public

Prosecutor will not be helpful to the prosecution.

The ratio laid down in the case of State

Govt.of NCT Delhi V/s. Sunil (Supra), Rifakatalikhan

(Supra), State of Gujarat V/s. Raghunath Vamanrao

Baxi (Supra) are, more or less, on the same line as

laid down in the case of Manohar Amrut Satpudke

(Supra) and therefore, it is not required to be

discussed any further.

40. The offset of the above discussion is that

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

case beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the issue nos.2

and 3 are also answered in negative and the benefit

thereof must go to the accused no.1. Hence, the

following order is passed.


41/41


ORDER

Accused No.1 - Umar Haji Abu Bera is given

benefit of doubt of the offences punishable under

Section 120-B read with Section 489-B and 489-C of

the Indian Penal Code and is hereby acquitted. Bail

bond of the accused stands cancelled.

Since accused no.3 - Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka

is still absconding and the trial against him has

been separated vide order dated 07.07.2001 passed

below Exh.33 in Sessions Case No.51/1995 (New

Special Case No.4/2005), no order with regard to

these case properties be made and the same shall be

preserved by the office till the trial against

accused Ahmed Haji Anwar Sunka is over.

Pronounced in the open Court on this 20th day

of March, 2009.

[S.H. VORA]

Special Judge, CBI Court No.5,

At Mirzapur, Ahmedabad.

leena

counterfeit foreign currency case judgement-ahmedabad court

Documents