Nazeer Ahmad Khan v. State

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 2010:DHC:690 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.

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