MANMIT SAGGU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Learned APP for" the Stat e.

(2.) The Appellants are original Accused Nos. 1 to2. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dat ed7.2. 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 550 of 1995 along with Sessions Case No. 985 of 1996. In Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2004, the Appellants are (1) Manmit Swarup Saggu @ Rocky and (2) Kulmit Swarup Saggu @ Kaka, who were original Accused Nos. 1 and2. In Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2004, the Appellant Mahesh Taneja was the original Accused No.4. Besides these Appellants, there were four other accused. Accused No. 3 Ramsen Palawat was absconding and did not face the trial. Accused No. 5 Babaji Bhogale and Accused No. 6 Kanaram Choudhary had preferred separat e appeals before this Court. However, they have already served the entire sentence and they withdrew their appeals. Accused No. 7 was acquitted.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses as follows : i) P. W. 1 Pandurang Pat il was P. I. at tached to D. C. B. , C. I. D. who had received the informat ion, had verified the same and had given his F. I. R. ii) P. W. 2 Rupesh Redkar was a pancha witness in whose presence stamps were recovered at the instance of accused No. 6 Choudhary. iii) P. W. 3 Dharmendra Sone was a pancha witness in whose presence, cash of Rs. 65,000/- was recovered at the instance of the Appellant- Accused No. 2 Kulmit from his house. iv) P. W. 4 Shrikrishna Ringe was an important witness because he has acted as a pancha witness during the raid on 30.10. 1994. v) P. W. 5 Sarvayya was a pancha witness in whose presence perforat ion machine was seized from the accused No. 3 Ramsing. vi) P. W. 6 Sat ish Gamare was a photographer who had taken photographs during the raid, however, the photographs were not produced during trial. vii) P. W. 7 Naresh Dudhani was a witness who has introduced the accused No. 3 Ramsing to the accused No. 1 Manmit. viii) P. W. 8 Sohail Buddha was at tached to D. C. B. , C. I. D. and who had recovered forged stamps from accused no. 6 Choudhary. ix) P. W. 9 Jayram Kulkarni was an expert from the INdian Security Press at Nashik, who had given his report in respect of the samples sent to him. x) P. W. 10 Pawde was at tached to D. C. B. , C. I. D. and he had recovered the films from the possession of accused No. 5 Babaji Bhogale at the instance of the accused No. l Manmit. xi) P. W. 11 P. I. Vast was the INvestigat ing Officer who was present during the raid. xii) P. W. 12 Pat ange was examined as a Court Commissioner who has submitted his report in respect of the printing machine kept in the said premises.