Abdul Rehan vs State of Delhi

R.S. Sodhi, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 1995, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for an offence u/s 103 Delhi Police Act.

The allegations of the prosecution are that the accused Abdul Rehani on 14th October, 1993 at 8.50 pm at plat form-2-Crl.Rev.P.266/1995 number was found in possession of an attached case containing a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- suspected to be the stolen property. The accused has not been able to give any satisfactory account of possessing the same. Notice u/s 103 of the Delhi Police Act has been served on the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It was the case of the accused that he had received this money from 45 passengers for the purposes of arranging the passage from Delhi to Jeddah and from Jeddah to Delhi. The name and Passport Nos. of the passengers are given below:-

S.No. Name Passport No. 1. Mohammad Zakir Hussain H-612172 2. Abdul Manan H-612459 3. Adil Hussain A 812779 4. Isleyaque Ahmed K-555500 5. Mohammad Mainuddin M-749758 6. Mohammad Zakauddin M-100376 7. Salim Siddique P-690413 8. Zakir Hussain A-701545 3-Crl.Rev.P.266/1995 9. Mohammad Aslam N-018922 10. Mohammad Matiullah K-739826 11. Subhan Ali A-812264 12. Mujiber Rehman N-066386 13. Mohammad Muslim M-438696 14. Mohammad Sahabuddin X-465573 15. Mohammad Obaidullah K-764697 16. Gulam Mustafa L-733677 17. Oozain Khan H-467123 18. Manjoor Ali A-869473 19. Abdul Kalam M-437426 20. Sajik Alam L-309553 21. Shekh Ainul Haque A-949846 22. Noorshed Alam I-120193 23. Rajaquat Hussain K-740871 24. Sajadullah Ali L-856960 25. Sajirul Haque H-996610 26. Mohammad Nasiruddin W-723867 27. Noorul Hoda M-750119 4- Crl.Rev.P.266/1995 28. Tanweer Zaffar X-883779 29. Syed Eqbal K-259728 30. Nasiumul Haque C-318080 31. Mohammad Alauddin X-883597 32. Faiyaz Ahmad H-708683 33. Abdullah Ansari H-242911 34. Naushad Ali L-856553 35. Abdullah Alam L-859805 36. Abdul Sattar W-253141 37. Mohammad Nurul Hoda N-145505 38. Mohammad Hsibullah N-144186 39. Razi Ahmad A-436926 40. Mohammad Gyasuddin W-009061 41. Mumtaz X-053673 42. Nasir Alam Ansari H-709517 43. Mohammad Sahabuddin M-240270 Ahmad 44. Noorul Hasan K-764142 45. Alam Gir Ansari I-185337 5-Crl.Rev.P.266/1995

During the trial the defense has examined 47 witnesses out of which 45 witnesses have deposed to the effect that they had given money to the petitioner to arrange for their travel from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi. Two other witnesses, CW-1, Mr.Ramesh Siddiqui, Manager of Gulf Travel Agency and CW-2 Mr.Tariq Usmani, Head Constable Ramesh Pal Singh were also examined. CW-1 has deposed to the effect that the aforesaid money had been given to the petitioner as refund as the same was deposited by the accused with the travel agency. The trial court while appreciating the evidence on record refused to believe that such an amount could be refunded by the travel agency to the petitioner for the purposes of being dispersed to the persons who had given the same to the petitioner for arranging their passage from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner herein has been held guilty for an offence u/s 103 of the Delhi Police Act.

With the assistance of counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Sate, I have gone through the statements of witnesses. Fourty five witnesses have stated that they had given-6-Crl.Rev.P.266/1995 money to the petitioner for arranging their passage from Delhi to Jeddah and Jeddah to Delhi and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements. The travel agent with whom this money was deposited had stated that the petitioner has deposited this money with him which was later on refunded. The aforesaid witnesses who have been disbelieved by the trial court without giving any cogent reason ought not to have been disbelieved as their veracity has not been shattered in any manner in their cross-examination.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the material on record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has been able to explain satisfactorily the ownership of amount of Rs.10,89,000/- recovered from him by the police and Therefore, cannot be held guilty for an offence u/s 103 of the Delhi Police Act. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order dated 12th October, 1995. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Crl.Rev.P. 266/1995 is accordingly allowed and disposed of. Crl.M.A.4604/2004 also stands disposed of.