Nazeer Ahmad Khan vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 671 Del

                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Crl. Rev. P. No. 130/2007

                                               Reserved on: 11.01.2010
                                           Date of Decision: 05.02.2010

     Nazeer Ahmad Khan                                        ...    Petitioner

                                Through:   Mr. S.P. Singh Choudhary, Adv.
                                           with Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Adv. and
                                           Mr. Shailender Kumar, Adv.
                                Versus
     State                                                        ...Respondent
                                Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Adv.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
     1.  Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to
         see the judgment?                  Yes
     2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
     3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest?

                                                      Yes

S. L. BHAYANA, J.

1. This revision petition has arisen out of the order passed by

the learned ASJ wherein the learned ASJ has framed charge

against the petitioner on 5.2.2007 against the accused in the

present case under section 489B/ 489C read with section 120B

IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier

the learned ASJ had framed charge against the petitioner on

11.9.2006 under section 489B/ 489C read with section 120B IPC

but the said order was set aside by this Court vide order dated

6.12.2006 and this Court had directed the learned trial Court to

hear the arguments afresh and pass the order in accordance with

law. Arguments were again heard by learned trial Court and

learned trial Court has passed a detailed order dated 5.2.2007

giving reasons and has ordered that charge be framed against the

petitioner u/s 489B/ 489C read with section 120B IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

learned trial Court has not applied its mind while framing charge

against the petitioner. There is no material against the petitioner

to frame the charge on 5.2.2007 against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that

there is sufficient material on record against the petitioner on the

basis of which charge has been framed. He further submits that

the accused Nazir Ahmed Khan/ petitioner was in constant touch

with co-accused person Ezaz Ahmad Wani and Shabbir Ahmed on

the mobile phone and the relevant phone details have been

procured by the police. The telephone details between the

accused persons have been proved by PW-9 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal

Officer, Vodafone. He has further submits that the visiting card

containing number 3cw-338326 of Rs.50/- note and mobile No.

9899896717 was recovered from Ezaz Ahmad Wani on 28.5.2005

during his arrest. This visiting card was carrying a secret code on

the basis of which he had delivered counterfeit currency and the

same visiting card having same code has been seized from Nazir

Ahmed Khan when he was arrested in the case FIR No. 83/2005.

This is also an incriminating article collected by the police to

prove his complicity in this case.

5. The learned APP has relied upon case law S. MURTAZA

FAZAL ALI AND D.A. DESAI AIR 1979 SC 366, and KANTI BHADRA

SHAH & ANR V THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL.2000(1)JCC {SC}100

which applies to the facts of the present case.

6. I have gone through the record and I find that learned trial

Court has passed a detailed order on charge on 5.2.2007 and I

have also gone through the statement of Anuj Bhatia, Nodal

Officer, Vodafone/ PW-9, who has proved details in respect of

calls made by the petitioner to the co-accused Izaz Ahmed Wani.

I have also seen the visiting card No. 3cw-338326 placed on

record by the prosecution which was recovered from the

petitioner as well as from the accused Izaz Ahmed Wani. This

visiting card contains specific code number on the basis of which

counterfeit currency was delivered to the other party.

7. I find no infirmity in the order passed by learned trial

Court. No ground for interference is made out.

8. Dismissed.

S. L. BHAYANA, J February 05, 2010 Kb