This appeal by the prosecution challenges the order granting bail to the respondent,

Inspector of Police attached to the Dharavi Crime Branch, Unit-5, Mumbai. The
respondent was arrested during the investigation of the crime registered in the Bund
Garden Police Station, Pune relating to the organised crime that has come to be
known as the stamp scam . The respondent was accused No.55. He was arrested on
18.10.2003 and though the Special court declined his prayer for bail, in appeal, the
High Court granted bail. It is that order of the High Court that is challenged in this
appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short the CBI) had taken over the investigation as directed by this
Court in March 2004, had conducted proper investigation and had charge-sheeted
various accused and a revised charge-sheet had been filed in July 2004. It is
submitted that this Court had entrusted the investigation to the CBI on finding that
the Special Investigating Team constituted for that purpose by the State of
Maharashtra was not investigating the crime having great social dimensions, in a
proper manner or with due sincerity. He submitted that the investigation conducted
by the CBI clearly indicated the involvement of the respondent in lending a helping
hand to Telgi to facilitate the commission of an organised crime and the evidence,
thus, far obtained by the CBI has not been appreciated properly by the High Court
keeping in mind the circumstances under which the CBI came into the picture and
started an investigation on its own. Counsel submitted that the High Court made an
erroneous approach to the materials gathered by the CBI and has erred in discarding
them on the basis that there was some delay in recording the statements of the
witnesses, at least nine of whom had spoken of the involvement of the respondent
and the confessional statement of accused No.8 Sajid, who confessed that he had
handed over Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent by way of illegal gratification and as a
quid pro quo for the respondent releasing those connected with a stamp offence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants particularly pointed out that the respondent
had failed to arrest Telgi when Telgi had appeared in the office of the Crime Branch
Dharavi, Unit-5, Mumbai. Similarly, the respondent had set free the various persons
taken into custody when huge quantity of fake stamps were recovered in a raid and
this was done by the respondent in the light of the illegal gratification received by
him from Sajid. The High Court erred completely in not giving due weight to those
witnesses who spoke of the failure of the respondent to arrest Telgi even when he
was wanted and when he appeared at the Police Station and presented himself
before the respondent and also the confession of Sajid supported by other relevant
materials that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs had been paid to the respondent for inducing him
to set free a number of persons involved in the stamp scam, taken into custody while
raiding a premises in Andheri and recovering a huge cache of fake stamps.

5. Counsel submitted that the High Court has also not kept in mind the nature of the
offence, its impact on society, the position held by the respondent, his duty as a
protector of the law and the rights of the citizens and the nature of his conduct. It
was a clear case where the offences under Section 3, 4 and 24 of the Maharasthra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short the MCOCA) had been made out. The
High Court ought not to have interfered with the order refusing to grant bail.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the
respondent was not holding such a responsible post as to be able to assist Telgi and
his associates in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that the High Court
has not erred in granting bail to him. Counsel submitted that the confession of Sajid
had to be tested at the trial and the High Court was not incorrect in not relying on it
at this stage to refuse bail to the respondent. Counsel also submitted that after all it
was an order granting bail to an accused, no doubt in a serious crime and that
normally this Court in appeal would not interfere with such an order. Counsel
therefore, submitted that no interference was warranted in this appeal.

7. We find that there is some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the High Court was not correct in thinking that all the evidence
gathered by the CBI must be treated as evidence gathered belatedly. The High Court
obviously forgot that the CBI was directed to take up the investigation by this Court
only in March 2004 and what this Court was intending, was a thorough investigation
by the CBI, especially in the nature of unsatisfactory performance of the State Police
and the number of police personnel and higher ups allegedly involved in the
organised crime. To that extent we cannot approve the approach or attitude of the
High Court in dealing with the appeal against the refusal to grant bail to the
respondent. Same would be the position regarding the confessional statement of
Sajid and the High Court was not correct in trying to discard it on the basis that it was
belated.

8. Any studied inaction or aid extended to the members of an organised crime, the
members of an organised gang involved in such crime might also amount to an
offence under MCOCA and this fact cannot be forgotten when dealing with the case
of a police officer allegedly involved in the crime. But then that is a matter to be
decided by the trial court at the time of trial of the offence. For the present we need
only indicate that we cannot fully endorse the approach made by the High Court in
granting bail to the respondent.

9. At the same time, we do not think it proper in this appeal to go into the various
aspects urged at great length by counsel appearing in the case. We think that the
matters must be left to the trial court for decision after taking proper evidence and it
would be premature to pronounce on the various aspects urged before us. Though
we are not in a position either to fully endorse or to fully approve the views
expressed by the High Court in the order under challenge, we do not think that it is
necessary, at this stage, to interfere with that order and set aside the bail granted to
the respondent. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the decision of the High Court
though we do find merit in some of the aspects urged by the counsel for the
appellant.

10. In view of what is stated above, the appeal is dismissed leaving all the questions
open to be decided by the trial court.

4 yrs RI for Telgi, 5 others

Friday, January 22, 2010

4 yrs RI for Telgi, 5 others

Hyderabad: Fake stamp paper scam kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi and five others
were today sentenced to four-years rigorous imprisonment by a special CBI
court here after they pleaded guilty in the case
Judge V Raghunath Rao pronounced the terms for Telgi, P Abdul Waheed,
Thomas Jacob, Badruddin K Jamadar, B Sadasiva and K Mohd Yousuf after they
pleaded guilty on charges under section 120-B of Indian Penal Code
(IPC) pertaining to criminal conspiracy and under sections 258 (Sale and
circulation of fake stamps), 260 (possession of fake stamps) and 420
(cheating) of IPC , with fine of Rs 500 each.

The judge, however, dropped charges under IPC section 255 dealing with
counterfeiting (printing) of government stamp papers against Telgi on the
grounds of lack of material evidence. The court also found them guilty under
section 69 (B) of Indian Stamp Act and imposed sentences of six months simple
imprisonment.

Telgi's advocate Farhatullah told reporters that his client confessed his
involvement in the scam.

The judgment has come in one of the two cases registered against Telgi and his
associated in Hyderabad.

The CBI has not yet filed chargesheet in the other case. Telgi faces about 50
cases in the fake stamp paper scam in different parts of the country.

All the sentences will run concurrently. The judge in his orders also directed that
the remand period if any undergone by all the accused is set off under section
428 CrPC. Telgi, currently lodged in a Bangalore jail, was brought by an escort
police party of Karnataka and produced in the court on January 20, which posted
the case for framing of charges today.

The CBI had filed a charge sheet in the court against Telgi and five others after
the case was transferred to the agency by Hyderabad Police in 2004

Telgi pleads guilty- Gets 13 Years Jail

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Pune, June 28 (IANS) Abdul Karim Telgi, the prime accused in the multi-billion rupee fake
stamp paper scam, was Thursday sentenced to 13 years in jail and fined Rs.500 million by
a special court here Thursday after he pleaded guilty to all charges against him.

Additional Sessions Judge Chitra K. Bedi said the convict would have to undergo an additional jail
term of three years if he fails to pay the fine.

The judge of the special court, set up under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
(MCOCA), also sentenced 42 co-accused to jail terms ranging from one year to seven years.

Pronouncing the sentences, the judge observed that the court might have passed much more
strict sentence had the accused not pleaded guilty.

This was the first and the most important in a series of 49 cases related to the Rs.30 billion
scandal of issuing fake stamp papers.

It was this case that took the lid off the scam, masterminded by the 46-year-old stamp vendor and
spread over nearly a dozen states.

The Bundgarden police here had registered the case after seizure of fake government stamps
and stamp papers from a car in 2002. It was later transferred to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI).

The scandal involved large-scale printing, circulation and sale of counterfeit government stamp
papers and other security instruments by an organised crime syndicate headed by Telgi.

Earlier in the day, Telgi pleaded guilty amid high drama in the courtroom.With folded hands and
tearful eyes, he answered the judge's queries and said he was aware of the huge loss to the
national exchequer caused by his actions.

Saying "sorry" to the country for his crime, he added that his wife had persuaded him to admit his
guilt unconditionally.

Following his confession, Telgi's counsel Harshad Nimbalkar appealed to the court to take a
lenient view on punishing him and take into account his HIV-positive status.

CBI counsel Raja Thakre opposed the plea, saying, "A lenient view of this criminal who is now
shedding crocodile tears should not influence the quantum of sentence as it will send wrong
signals to the people and imply that anyone can get away softly despite the magnitude of the
crime."

Telgi, currently lodged in Yerwada Central Jail here, had Wednesday conveyed his desire to
plead guilty through his counsel after 42 of his co-accused had done the same.

In a sensational disclosure during a narco-analysis test in 2003, Telgi had named several
powerful politicians and officials as his accomplices. But all of the politicians named by him had
denied charges.

The CBI had also filed charge sheets against former Mumbai Police Commissioner R.S. Sharma
and two other senior police officers, but they were discharged Wednesday by the court for lack of
evidence.

Telgi's first conviction came in January last year, when the Pune court sentenced him to 10 years
in prison for counterfeiting government stamps.

In March this year, a special court in Bangalore sentenced him to another 10 years in jail for
forgery and cheating. Subsequently, he was given terms of 15 years and seven years in two more
cases.

Telgi's third sentence came in April when the special court sentenced him to 15 years for forgery
and conspiring to cheat the state.

On June 21, the same court sentenced him to seven years in prison for bribing two government
doctors to get a fake medical certificate to secure bail.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Three Mumbai cops cleared of charges in stamp paper scam

Pune, June 27 (IANS) A special court in Pune framing charges in the multi-million rupees
fake stamp paper scam Wednesday cleared a former Mumbai police commissioner and
two other police officers of all charges.

The special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court, which Tuesday framed
charges against prime accused Abdul Karim Telgi and 42 others, Wednesday discharged former
Mumbai police commissioner R.S. Sharma, former deputy commissioner of police (crime branch)
Pradeep Sawant and suspended inspector of police Vashist Andhale for lack of evidence.

Special Judge Chitra Bhedi said that the prosecution did not have enough evidence against them.

All the three had been in judicial custody before being granted bail.

Prior to his arrest, Sharma was tipped for the top police post in Maharashtra. He has since retied.

The special court Tuesday rejected the applications of the accused challenging their prosecution
under the stringent MCOCA act.

Charges were framed against Telgi and others including 26 of his former employees for being
members of an organised crime syndicate, which conspired to impersonate, posses, fabricate,
forge and market fake government stamps and stamp papers to the detriment of the state.

While 40 pleaded guilty except to charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
Telgi denied all charges against him and pleaded "not guilty".

The court had Tuesday discharged a former stamp vendor, Madhav Mutta Devadia, who had
been named a conspirator. Telgi had allegedly misused the government license granted to
Devadia to sell stamps and stamp papers.

If convicted, the accused face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

Charges against 21 other accused were also framed Tuesday.

Ref: http://news.vakilno1.com/labels/Telgi.html

In India, narco-analysis was first used in 2002 in the Godhra carnage case. It was also in the
news after the famous Arun Bhatt kidnapping case in Gujarat wherein the accused had
appeared before NHRC and the Supreme Court of India against undergoing the narco-analysis.
It was again in the news in the Telgi stamp paper scam when Abdul Karim Telgi was taken to
the test in December 2003.
In 2004, the Bombay High Court ruled in the multi-crore-rupee fake stamp paper case that
subjecting an accused to certain tests like narcoanalysis does not violate the fundamental right
against self-incrimination. Article 20(3) of the Constitution guarantees this: "No person
accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Statements made
under narco analysis are not admissible in evidence.

In a 2006 judgment (Dinesh Dalmia v State), the Madras High Court held that subjecting an
accused to narco analysis is not tantamount to testimony by compulsion. The court said about
the accused: "he may be taken to the laboratory for such tests against his will, but the
revelation during such tests is quite voluntary."

In January 24th, 2008, a bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan reserved its ruling after
hearing arguments for three days from various parties, including Solicitor General Goolam E.
Vahanvati and senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appointed by the bench as amicus curiae to
assist the court in the case.
Telgi and his accomplices are facing probe by various states' police and other investigative
agencies for their alleged criminal acts.
These accused people have challenged the legality of the use polygraph, brain mapping and
narco-analysis by the investigative agencies to probe the crime.

The Bombay High Court recently in a significant verdict in the case of, Ramchandra Reddy and
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, upheld the legality of the use of P300 or Brain finger-printing,
lie-detector test and the use of truth serum or narco analysis. The court upheld a special court
order given by the special court in Pune as mentioned above, allowing the SIT to conduct
scientific tests on the accused in the fake stamp paper scam including the main accused,
Abdul Karim Telgi. The verdict also said that the evidence procured under the effect of truth
serum is also admissible. In the course of the judgment, a distinction was drawn between
“statement” (made before a police officer) and “testimony” (made under oath in court). The
Judges, Justice Palshikar and Justice Kakade, said that the lie-detector and the brain mapping
tests did not involve any “statement” being made and the statement made under narco
analysis was not admissible in evidence during trial. The judgment also held that these tests
involve “minimal bodily harm”.

A court in Kerala recently pronounced that no court order is required to do a narco analysis,
Disposing of a petition filed by the CBI seeking permission of the court, the magistrate said
that filing this type of a plea would only delay the investigation. The court said nobody could
stand in the way of the investigating agency conducting tests recognized as effective
investigation tools. When the technicalities of the test itself are not clear and uniform, it
becomes difficult to accept the stand taken by the court.In India, narco-analysis was first used
in 2002 in the Godhra carnage case. It was also in the news after the famous Arun Bhatt
kidnapping case in Gujarat wherein the accused had appeared before NHRC and the Supreme
Court of India against undergoing the narco-analysis. It was again in the news in the Telgi
stamp paper scam when Abdul Karim Telgi was taken to the test in December 2003.