Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka, through the Central Bureau of Investigation, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the judgment dated 14.09.2010 passed by the Special Judge, 35th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in S.C. Nos. 643/2003, 352/2004 and 353/2004. The trial had arisen from the arrest of Abdul Kareem Telgi (Accused No.1) in Crime No.545/2000 for manufacturing and circulating fake stamp papers. Despite being in judicial custody at Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru, Accused No.1 continued his illegal activities by conspiring with associates, contacting them through mobile phones. The investigating agency, STAMPIT, obtained permission under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to intercept communications, and the analysis of intercepted conversations revealed that Accused No.1 was monitoring and instructing his associates for running the fake stamp circulation across the country. The investigation led to the seizure of large volumes of fake stamp papers and materials, and a charge-sheet was filed against 33 accused persons for offences under the Indian Penal Code, Karnataka Stamp Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000. The trial court framed 58 charges, examined 146 witnesses, and by the impugned judgment convicted some accused under Sections 256 and 259 read with Section 120B of IPC, but acquitted them and several others of charges under Section 420 IPC, the KCOC Act, and the PC Act. The instant appeal specifically challenges the acquittal of respondents (Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 to 11, 18, 26, 31, 32 and 33) in respect of the offences under Section 420 r/w 120B IPC, Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5), 4 and 25 of the KCOC Act r/w 120B IPC, and the acquittal of Accused Nos.32 and 33 under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 120B IPC. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the respondents, framed two substantial questions of law regarding the legality and correctness of the acquittal. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the final decision, holding, or ratio decidendi, as the text cuts off during the submission of the Special Public Prosecutor.
Issue of Consideration
i) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from error of law and fact insofar as acquitting the respondents/accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 to 11, 18, 26, 31, 32 and 33, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 R/w 120B of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5), 4 and 25 of KCOC Act read with Section 120B of IPC ? ii) Whether the court below is justified in acquitting accused Nos.32 and 33 of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section 120-B of IPC?
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (08) 25
Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2011
Ravi Malimath, John Michael Cunha
P. Prasanna Kumar (Special Public Prosecutor for Appellant), M.T. Nanaiah (Senior Counsel for R1), K. Hemanth Kumar (for R1), Amar Correa (for R2 and Amicus Curiae for R7 & R11), M. Shashidhara (for R4, R5, R6, R9, R10), Dilraj Rohit Sequiera (for R12), Syed Khaleel Pasha (for R13), B.V. Venkat Rao (for R14 & R15), Younous Ali Khan (for R3 & R8)
State of Karnataka (Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru) through Central Bureau of Investigation
Abdul Kareem Telgi, Badruddin, Rafi Ahmed, B. Sadashiva, Abdul Waheed, Abdul Khuddus, Sachin Kalge, Sarfaraz Nawaz, Illiyas Ahmed, Sadiq Ibrahim Hudli, Sidhu @ Siddu, Jacob Chacko Teketla, M.B. Ali Iliyas, P.N. Jayasimha, Nanjappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal filed by State against acquittal of respondents for certain offences under IPC, KCOC Act, and PC Act.
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the respondents for offences under Section 420 read with 120B IPC, sections of KCOC Act, and PC Act.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the respondents of the said offences despite evidence of conspiracy and organised crime as alleged by the prosecution.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Special Judge) convicted some accused under Sections 256, 259 IPC r/w 120B, but acquitted them of charges under Section 420 IPC, KCOC Act, and PC Act. The acquitted accused include the respondents in the present appeal.
Issues
Whether the impugned judgment suffers from error of law and fact insofar as acquitting the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Sections – 420 R/w 120B of IPC, and Sections-3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5), 4 and 25 of KCOC Act read with Section – 120B of IPC?
Whether the court below is justified in acquitting accused Nos.32 and 33 of the offences punishable under Sections-7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section-13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 read with Section-120-B of IPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court committed serious error in acquitting the respondents of the offences under KCOC Act, as the material produced in proof of the offences clearly made out the ingredients of the said offences, but the Special Judge chose to acquit the respondents of these charges.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
The accused Nos.4, 13 to 17, 19, 25, 27 & 31 to 33 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C of the offences charged under Section 256, 258, 259 and 420 IPC read with Section 120(B) IPC and also for the offences under Section 63(b) of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5), 4 & 25 of the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000, read with Section 120(B) IPC; and under Section 7, 12, 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120(B) IPC.
Procedural History
Accused No.1 arrested in Crime No.545/2000 of Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru. He was lodged in Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara. STAMPIT obtained permission under Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act to intercept communications. Investigation revealed continued illegal activities from prison. Accused persons were arrested and at their instance, fake stamp papers and materials were seized. Chargesheet filed against 33 accused for various offences. Special Judge framed 58 charges. Prosecution examined 146 witnesses and marked 518 exhibits and 230 material objects. By impugned judgment dated 14.09.2010, trial court convicted certain accused under Sections 256, 259 IPC r/w 120B, and acquitted others, including acquitting respondents herein of offences under KCOC Act and PC Act. State filed appeal under Section 378(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal. The appeal came up for hearing and judgment was delivered on 03.08.2017, but the provided text is incomplete and does not contain the final decision.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 255, 256, 258, 259, 420, 120-B, 461, 463, 468, 471, 475
- Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957: 63(b)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
- Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000: 3(1)(ii), 3(4), 3(5), 4, 25
- Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: 5(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 235, 372, 378, 360
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
