Farukh Sheikh v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Judgment

#1. By way of the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the orders dated 23.11.2023 and 11.12.2023 passed by the learned ASJ-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi1 in SC No.442/2022 entitled ‘State vs. Aniqul Islam & Ors.’ insofar as it directs framing of charges under Sections

1Hereinafter “learned Trial Court” CRL.REV.P. 294/2024 489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 read with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 19673 against the petitioner.

#2. Briefly put, on 17.06.2022, a secret information was received that two persons, namely Sahim and Anikul Islam, were involved in supply of Fake Indian Currency Notes4 after procuring them from the present petitioner and Kasim for delivering them to one Rahis between 11:00 AM and 12:30 PM near Dilshad Garden Metro Station. As such, thereupon, a raiding team was constituted and upon identification by the informer, Sahim and Anikul Islam were apprehended. During personal search, one black polythene from each of them was recovered from the left pocket of their jeans, both containing one bundle of Rs.2,000/- denomination currency notes, containing 100 leaves/ notes each, wrapped in paper with distinct markings. The notes appeared to be counterfeit on cursory examination. Both accused were apprehended along with the recovered currency, and the present FIR under Sections 489B/489C IPC came to be registered.

#3. During investigation, the co-accused persons in their statements disclosed that they use to procure the FICN from the present petitioner and Kasim, both residents of West Bengal. Thereafter, on 06.07.2022, the recovered FICN were sent to the Currency Note Press, Nashik for expert examination. As per its report dated 27.07.2022, all 200 currency leaves/ notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination were found to be high-quality counterfeit, with key security features closely imitated. Thereafter, on 10.08.2022, as per 2Hereinafter “IPC” 3Hereinafter “UAPA” 4Hereinafter “FICN” CRL.REV.P. 294/2024 procedure and after obtaining approval from the competent authority, Section 16 of the UAPA was added to the present FIR.

#4. Based on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons, the present petitioner was apprehended on 01.11.2022. Upon search, one bundle of Rs.2,000/- denomination currency notes containing 10 leaves/ notes was recovered. Thereafter, on 24.11.2022, the recovered FICN were also sent to the Currency Note Press, Nashik for expert examination. As per its report dated 25.11.2022, all 10 currency leaves/ notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination were once again found to be high-quality counterfeit, with key security features closely imitated.

#5. After filing of the chargesheet on 14.09.2022, and supplementary chargesheet on 27.01.2023, the charges against the accused persons including the petitioner were framed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated

23.11.2023 and formal charge vide order dated 11.12.2023 was framed.

#6. Hence, the present petition seeking setting aside of the impugned orders dated 23.11.2023 and 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court.

#7. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submitted that a case under the UAPA is not made out against the petitioner as a perusal of the supplementary chargesheet clearly reflects that the petitioner was allegedly apprehended and recovery was made by a team led by a Sub-Inspector, which is violative of the provisions contained under Section 43 of the UAPA, since the investigation can only be carried out by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, in the present case by the ACP. The learned CRL.REV.P. 294/2024 counsel further submitted that since the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner was only for Rs.20,000/-, which is less than Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, in terms of Rule 5 of the Investigation of High Quality Counterfeit Indian Currency Offences Rules, 2013, a case under Section 16 of the UAPA is not made out. Moreover, there is also a delay by the prosecution in forwarding the alleged FICN recovered from the petitioner to the notified forensic authority.

#8. Learned counsel further submitted that as per prosecution, although the co-accused persons allegedly disclosed the involvement of the petitioner on

17.06.2022, the petitioner was arrested only on 01.11.2022. Based thereon, the learned counsel submitted that the arrest of the petitioner is not due to the alleged disclosure statement of the co-accused persons, but on the basis of independent information received by the Investigating Agency. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that no inference of a criminal conspiracy can be drawn from the Call Detail Records5 as the records do not show any immediate communication between the petitioner and the co-accused persons. More so, since the last alleged conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Shariqul Sheikh was on 28.04.2022.

#9. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned orders dated 23.11.2023 and

11.12.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court.

#10. Per contra, learned APP for the State, relying upon the Status Report, submitted that the impugned orders are well reasoned and the learned Trial 5Hereinafter “CDR” CRL.REV.P. 294/2024 Court has rightly found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736, more so, since while framing charges, the learned Trial Court is only required to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused persons is made out as a meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible.

#11. Learned APP further submitted that since two of the co-accused Aniqul Islam and Sharikul Sheikh were apprehended with FICN of high- quality and were allegedly part of a fake currency racket operated by the petitioner herein and use to procuring counterfeit currency from him and supplying the same to various persons in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Delhi, a prima facie case under Sections 489B/489C/120B of the IPC read with Section 16 of the UAPA is made out. The learned APP further submitted that analysis of the CDR of the mobile numbers recovered from the said co- accused persons during investigation revealed that there was frequent communication with the petitioner herein. The same indicates his/ their involvement in circulation and distribution of FICN in furtherance of their common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the country’s economy.

#12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents as also the Status Report on record.

#13. The statutory framework governing discharge and framing of charges under Section(s) 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C are now well-settled and needs no 6Hereinafter “Cr.P.C” CRL.REV.P. 294/2024 further explanation and/ or finding to be arrived in these matters. As per law laid down in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal7;Sajjan Kumar v. CBI8; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander9; and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao10, at the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial as it is only to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case, without delving into the probative value of the material available on record. A conjoint reading of Section(s) 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C thus clearly establishes without doubt that while doing so, the Court is only to consider the material/ documents available on record, hear the submissions advanced by the prosecution as also the accused for determining as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused.

#14. In fact, even a remote link between the accused and the alleged offence may suffice to draw a reasonable prima facie inference to proceed for framing of charges against the accused. If the materials available on record prima facie do not disclose grounds, the accused is liable to be discharged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Conversely, if there are sufficient grounds/ materials on record to presume that the accused has committed an offence, and/ or was directly or indirectly involved therein, the Court has to proceed for framing of charges under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that all the factors raised for consideration by an accused would only be available after conclusion of trial. The same is de hors the