Delhi District Court
State vs Subodh Kumar on 30 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH BHATT, ASJ04 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.:27533/2016
Unique ID no.:02401R0243822014
State Vs Subodh Kumar
S/o Late Chattu Yadav
Case arising out of:
FIR no. : 91/2013
Police Station : Roop Nagar
Under Section : 489B & 489C IPC
Date of Institution : 03.06.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 18.01.2017
Date of Decision : 30.01.2017
J U D G M E N T:
1.This is a case U/s 489B and 489C IPC.
Prosecution's case is that on the day in question, accused deposited about Rs.71,000/ as LIC premium but an amount of Rs.22,500/ out of the same was found to be counterfeit. Accused was confronted with the same and he admitted his fault and gave his written statement to this effect. Police was called. Accused along with the counterfeit currency and genuine currency with the documents were handed to the police. Accused was arrested and later his specimen signatures and handwriting were obtained. The same were sent for comparison with the statement of the accused. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. Prosecution has examined 30 witnesses.
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 1/20PW1 and PW2 were the two cashiers of LIC office where accused deposited counterfeit currency mingled with genuine currency. PW1 stated that accused produced four policies and amount of Rs.40,050/ in the denomination of Rs.1000/ Rs.500/ and Rs.50/ and went to deposit other policies before 2 nd counter. On checking, he found that accused had deposited 22 fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and similarly PW2 Ashok Makhanwal also informed that accused had deposited 23 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ each. Accused was called to the Chief Manager's cabin and informed about the counterfeit. Accused informed that the said notes were given to him by the policy holders and made certain calls but later admitted his guilt in writing. The counterfeit notes were again checked at the Canara Bank cash machine and they called on 100. PCR and other police officials arrived at the spot. They submitted complaint along with the counterfeits & genuine currency deposited by the accused to the police officials. The aforesaid policy receipts were cancelled and delivered to IO and with computerized copies of policies.
3. PW3 stated that on the date in question, PW1 and PW2 informed him that the accused had deposited 45 fake currency notes and thereafter, they had checked the same at Canara Bank Machine. Accused thereafter gave his statement in writing and they made call on 100. Police arrived at the spot and recorded their statement.
4. PW3A Surender Sharma (erroneously also referred to as "PW3") stated that on the date in question, he was present in the LIC office and he heard noise of fake currency. He saw accused who was also a LIC Agent, present for deposit of LIC Premium and 45 counterfeit notes were found from him.
5. PW4 received rukka and recorded FIR of the present case.
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 2/206. PW5 along with Ct. Sudesh Kumar on receiving DD of the present case, went to the spot where they found PW1, PW2 and Manager of LIC Office, Kamla Nagar. LIC officials produced the present accused along with their complaint, Rs.22,500/ in the denomination of Rs.500/ (fake currency), notes were seized, sealed and taken into possession. He prepared rukka and Ct. Sudesh Kumar took the same to the Police Station. IO along with Constable, copy of FIR, original rukka reached the spot. He delivered the sealed pullandas and memo to the IO who put the FIR number on the same. IO arrested accused, prepared site plan and recorded their statements.
7. PW6 took rukka from the spot to the PS delivered the same to IO and returned with the IO and FIR to the spot. IO recorded disclosure statement and he took accused to hospital for medical examination.
8. PW7 did not fully support the prosecution's case but corroborated the fact that accused had written some statement on which he had appended his thumb impression and police in his presence took accused from the spot.
9. PW8 official from Govt. Mint had examined the coins of Rs.2/ and Re.1/ which were found to be genuine and submitted his report.
10. PW9 Technical Expert from Note Press, Nasik examined currency notes of the present case and found 45 notes to be counterfeit and 117 notes to be genuine.
11. PW10, PW12 to PW24 were the policy holders who stated that they had given genuine currency notes of their premium to the tune of Rs.2,496/, Rs.2,470/, Rs.11,286/, Rs.8,424/, Rs.8,245/, Rs.1,220/, Rs.1,220/, Rs.1,112/, Rs.6,078/, Rs.544/, Rs.5,433/, Rs.1,768/, Rs.888/ and Rs.7,100/ respectively to SC no.:27533/2016 Page 3/20 the accused.
12. PW11 Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Shakti Nagar, Delhi on notice had provided Janaki Prashad's account information and statement as per which said account holder had withdrawn Rs.30,000/ from his account through ATM.
13. PW25 examined the questioned documents with specimen handwriting and signatures of accused and opined that both were written by same person.
14. PW26 stated that on 30.08.2013, IO had filed an application in the court for separation of currency notes and coins which was allowed and plastic container was opened which was having three coins of Rs.2/ and one coin of Re.1/ along with currency notes. The same were separated and separate pullandas were prepared and seized. IO recorded his statement.
15. PW27 took sealed pullandas containing currency notes from MHC(M) and deposited the same with Currency Printing Press, Nasik on 16.07.2013. He again took another pullanda to the Press but they refused stating currency notes and coins were required to be separated. He collected the result and the case property and deposited with the MHC(M).
16. PW28 after separation of the coins and currency notes, took two pullandas and deposited the same with Govt. Mint, Mumbai and Nasik Press. He later collected the results from the said press and along with case property deposited with the MHC(M).
17. PW29 deposed similarly as PW26.
18. PW30 IO of the case deposed as per the prosecution's story.
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 4/2019. Vide separate statement, accused admitted his handwriting and signatures as well as the application for the permission of the same i.e. Ex.PW25/C to Ex.PW25/R and Ex.PW30/D. He also admitted the request letter and permission letter for separation of case property Ex.PW30/C.
20. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein accused admitted that he had deposited the LIC policies amount but clarified that he had delivered genuine currency and not counterfeit currency. The officials had checked the amount and only thereafter, delivered the receipts but later beat him up forcibly made him to write that his currency was fake. His wife had been working as a LIC Agent and he was employed with FCI near the office in question and therefore for convenience had been depositing the policy amount during the lunch time but the officials namely Ashok Kumar Makhanwal used to get irritated and had told him to deposit the amount before the concerned Narain Branch. He stated that due to this reason he was falsely implicated in this case.
He on application under Section 315 Cr.PC examined himself as DW1.
21. DW1 stated that his wife was LIC Agent and used to deposit the policy premium on behalf of his wife in the nearby branch on which the officials used to get annoyed. On the date in question, he had given an amount of Rs.40,050/ to Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj who after checking the currency had generated the receipts and returned balance of Rs.4/ along with receipts to him. He had thereafter submitted the amount of Rs.31,700/ in lieu of the premium amount of Rs.31,679/ with the second counter and the cashier had asked him to wait for some time. After ten minutes, the said cashier called him and started abusing and threatening him. He informed that 23 notes of Rs.500/ denomination were fake. He had informed that his amount was SC no.:27533/2016 Page 5/20 genuine and even CCTV footage could have been checked, however, the said persons dragged him to Branch Manager where they abused and beat him up. The first cashier also made similar false allegations against him that 22 notes of Rs.500/ denomination were fake. The LIC officials pressurized and threatened him and made him write a confession letter. He had also called one Jyoti Mandal who had put thumb impression on the said letter. Police had arrived and he was apprehended and thereafter was produced before the court. He later came to know that his LIC Premium receipts in question had been cancelled. He had under RTI obtained the reply of the LIC in regard to the cancellation which was Ex.DW1/1.
22. The allegations against the accused are that he was possessing 45 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and had knowingly used the same as genuine, thereby committed offences under Section 489B and 489C IPC.
23. There are two eyewitnesses and three connecting witnesses of the incident in question namely PW1, PW2, PW3, PW3A and PW7.
PW1 stated that on the day in question, accused came for deposit of four policy amounts, delivered the policies but stated that he would pay the amount after completion of the process and proceeded towards other counter of Sh. Ashok Makhanwal. He gave payment receipts to the accused and thereafter accused tendered Rs.40,050/ in the denomination of Rs.1,000/, Rs.500/ and Rs.50/ notes. During counting, he found 22 notes (of Rs.500/ denomination) to be counterfeit. The currency notes were stuck with one another and he called his AAO Prabhat Kumar. In the meanwhile, other cashier Ashok Makhanwal told that accused had also given him 23 counterfeit notes of Rs.500/ denomination. AAO Prabhat Kumar went inside Chief Manager's cabin and accused was called where he was informed about the SC no.:27533/2016 Page 6/20 counterfeit notes. Accused made call to one of the parties who informed that they had given genuine cash to the accused five days ago. Thereafter, he along with Ashok Makhanwal, Prabhat Kumar and accused went downstairs to Canara Bank for re checking the counterfeit notes. They returned to their office and called on 100 number. PCR and local police from PS Roop Nagar reached at the spot. They delivered written complaint, counterfeit notes and other genuine currency deposited by the accused at the said time. The fake and genuine currency notes were sealed in different plastic boxes. On the next day, he along with PW2 went to PS and delivered the six cancelled receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. The computerized copies of policies being Ex. P7 (colly) seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D and identified the fake currency notes in question Ex.P8 (colly) seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. In crossexamination, stated he had seen the accused depositing premium for the last 4 to 5 years and accused had also deposited fake currency on previous occasions but no complaint was lodged as the accused had himself changed the fake currency notes. He reiterated that accused had given four policies but since the same was not an agent counter line, therefore, he had asked the accused to come in proper line. He admitted that before preparing the receipt, he had not received the cash from the accused. He further stated that while counting the currency notes, he realized that the currency notes were fake. There was no CCTV camera installed in their branch. He denied that they had forcibly made accused to write some papers. He had not cancelled the LIC policies Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 but the same might have been cancelled by ClassII officer .7080 persons prior to accused and 810 persons after the accused had deposited premium amount at his counter. He admitted that in his statement to the police he had not mentioned about any public person having seen or heard the SC no.:27533/2016 Page 7/20 accused depositing fake currency notes at the counter. He denied that he was annoyed with the accused for depositing premium of another branch with their branch and for this reason, he had falsely implicated the accused in this case. He further denied that he was running fake currency racket and out of animosity, had trapped the accused in this case.
24. PW2 also deposed on the similar lines that accused had delivered 23 fake currency notes of RS.500/ denomination to him. In crossexamination, stated he had seen accused depositing premium in their branch for last one year but accused had never deposited any fake currency notes prior to the said date. On the date in question, accused had given him ten policies with cash of Rs.31,679/ at about 2:30 pm. As soon as he came to know about the fake currency notes, he called his AAO Sh. Prabhat Kumar. He also admitted that he had issued payment receipt before taking the premium amount from the accused. He also denied that he was annoyed with the accused for depositing premium of another branch with their branch and for this reason, he had falsely implicated the accused in this case. He also denied that he was running fake currency racket and out of animosity, had trapped the accused in this case.
25. PW1 and PW2's version is further corroborated by PW3 AAO Prabhat Kumar who stated that on the day in question at about 2:00 pm, PW1 informed him that accused had given him 22 fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination and thereafter PW2 informed him that accused had also given him 23 fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination. They all along with accused took the said 45 fake currency notes to the Canara Bank and checked the same in the machine and thereafter, accused gave his statement in writing and they made a call at 100 number.
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 8/20The police came and recorded their statements. In crossexamination, stated that he did not remember the exact time when they called the police but denied that police was called after 4:00 pm. He also clarified that there was no CCTV camera installed in their branch. He himself did not make call to police but probably Sh. Anil Kumar, Assistant Branch Manager had made such call. He admitted that accused did not accompany them to Canara Bank for checking the currency notes. He denied that they had intentionally not taken the accused with them as both cashiers had hatched conspiracy against the accused. He denied that the accused had not given any fake currency notes on the date in question or he was deposing falsely.
26. Besides the aforesaid LIC officials, at the time in question one independent witness PW3A was also present at the said place. He deposed that he was working as LIC Agent and was present at the said place in question. PW1 and PW2 were cashiers in the said office on the relevant day. At about 2:00 pm, he heard that fake currency notes were found at the cash counter. He came out of his Agent Room and found accused was present for deposit of his LIC premium and had deposited some amount which were having 45 counterfeit notes of Rs.500/ denomination. Accused had also furnished in writing that he was found possessing the said counterfeit notes. He left the office and later police recorded his statement. In crossexamination, stated he had not seen accused depositing or handing the said cash to the cashier but denied he was deposing falsely at the behest of cashier. He further stated that police recorded his statement at 4:00 pm in the Branch Manager's Office.
27. The next witness in continuity of the events is PW7. He stated that he was working at FCI Office, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He along with another official SC no.:27533/2016 Page 9/20 reached the LIC office in question where he met accused along with the staff of LIC branch. They had got recorded some documents from the accused. He remained in the office for about two hours and thereafter, police took accused and he returned from the LIC office. He stated that he was not aware of any other fact of the case. He was declared hostile but in crossexamination denied that he had made any statement that accused had admitted in his presence that he was possessing 45 fake currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination each or that his statement was explained to him. He however volunteered that he had put his thumb impression on the said statement. He denied that he had been won over by the accused and therefore, was not deposing the true facts.
28. Accused has disputed that he deposited any fake currency but the fact that the said alleged fake currency notes in question were taken into possession by the LIC officials prior to the arrival of the police is not disputed. There is also no dispute about the investigation process or sending of pullandas to the Note Press or their reports in question. The same are however also proved by other prosecution witnesses. PW10, 12 to 24 proved that they had deposited their premium to the tune of Rs.2,496/, Rs.2,470/, Rs.11,286/, Rs.8,424/, Rs.8,245/, Rs.1,220/, Rs.1,220/, Rs.1,112/, Rs.6,078/, Rs.544/, Rs.5,433/, Rs.1,768/, Rs.888/ and Rs.7,100/ respectively to the accused.
29. PW5 stated that PW1, PW2 and the Manager of LIC Office produced the accused along with complaint and fake currency notes of Rs.22,500/ in the denomination of Rs.500/ each. The same was kept in a plastic box and sealed with the seal and taken into possession vide Ex.PW1/B. He had prepared rukka and Ct. Suresh Kumar took the same to the PS and returned with the copy of FIR, original SC no.:27533/2016 Page 10/20 rukka and IO / SI Praveen Kumar. IO had arrested the accused and prepared site plan at his instance. PW6 Ct. Suresh Kumar corroborated the said facts.
30. PW30 IO / SI Praveen Kumar stated that at the spot ASI Prithu Ram handed him seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A along with two transparent containers containing fake currency notes and genuine currency. He interrogated the accused and prepared site plan Ex.PW5/D. He arrested the accused and ASI Prithu Ram delivered accused's hand written letter Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW6/A. He had gone in search of coaccused in the area of Sultan Puri but no clue was found. One Janki Prasad had informed him that he had withdrawn the amount from his SBI ATM and had given the said amount to the accused for renewal of his two LIC policies. He seized the relevant documents from the Bank Manager. On 02.05.2013, complainant Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj also produced four documents Ex.P7(colly) including the documents P30/1 to 3, seized vide Ex.PW1/C. On 08.05.2013 he had sent one container containing fake currency to Nasik Currency Note Press and second container on 16.07.2013. Ct. Mahipal deposited the original result and case property of first container containing fake currency sealed with the seal of Nasik Press and the second container of genuine currency with coins. On 30.08.2013 he had moved an application before the court for separation of currency notes and coins of second container, which was allowed, consequently he prepared three sealed container which were seized vide Ex.PW6/A. He recorded statement of HC Phool Kumar and Ct. Reshab. The same were again sent on 27.09.2013 to the Nasik Press through Ct. Sandeep and the result of the same was obtained on 01.02.2014. The six cancelled premium receipts were Ex.P1 to P6. He had moved an application for taking specimen signatures and specimen handwriting of the accused which was allowed by SC no.:27533/2016 Page 11/20 the Court and he had taken specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused Ex.PW25/C to Ex.PW25/R. After receiving the result from FSL Rohini, he filed the same in the court along with application Ex.PW30/E. In crossexamination, he admitted that he had not seen the incident in question and voluntarily stated that initially the investigation was conducted by ASI Parthu Ram. He denied that it was not possible for a single person to deposit the amount on two counters at the same time. He did not remember the exact time when the payment was received and the complaint was lodged. He volunteered stated that the time was mentioned on the receipt and disclosed by the witnesses in their statements. He also reiterated that there was no CCTV Cameras installed in the said LIC branch. He had not made any person who had deposited the money prior to or after the accused in the said branch as witness in the case. He denied that there was no person who had seen the accused depositing any fake currency on the date in question. He admitted that recovery of fake currency was not carried out in the presence of police official and had admitted that the Chief Branch Manager or Assistant Branch Manager had not filed any written compliant. He denied that there was no recovery from the accused or that the alleged recovery was planted by cashier of the LIC Branch. He denied that he had not properly investigated the matter or that he had falsely implicated the accused on the asking of the complainant. He also denied that complainant was dealing in fake currency notes and had falsely implicated accused in the present case.
31. Accused has also filed written arguments stating that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the reasons that:
1) No CCTV footage of the cameras installed in the branch, of the date of incident was taken.
2) The LIC premium receipts were issued by the cashiers to the SC no.:27533/2016 Page 12/20 accused after satisfactorily counting and ascertaining the genuineness of the currency notes. It is thus highly improbable that the cashier would have kept the money in his counter without checking and issued receipt without checking the same.
3) PW1 in crossexamination has admitted that they were having currency checking machine which was out of order but PW3 has stated that they were not having any currency checking machine in their branch. There is a contradiction and inconsistency in the statements of the eyewitnesses. PW1 stated that he came to know about the fake currency at about 1:45 pm while PW2 states that he came to know about the same at 2:30 pm. It is also illogical and not beyond doubt as neither PW1 nor PW2 immediately made call on 100 after detecting the fake currency notes.
4) It is admitted by the eyewitnesses that there were large number of people present but none of them were made witness nor had claimed to have seen or heard about the accused depositing counterfeit currency.
5) The entire proceedings relating to the recovery, statement of the accused and checking of the currency notes had been carried out by the LIC officials themselves even prior to arrival of the police at the said place. The accused had obtained reply under RTI wherein the concerned LIC branch has replied that the accused had deposited the same about 1:33 pm to 2:20 pm which is contrary to the time as claimed by PW1 and PW2.
6) The prosecution has failed to prove the mensrea on the part SC no.:27533/2016 Page 13/20 of the accused. Accused had also led evidence to prove that the officials of the LIC branch had been irritated on account of the accused having repeatedly depositing LIC premium amount on behalf of his wife and has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Umashankar Vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 642.
(ii) Ved Rattan Arya Vs. State, C.A. No.133 of 1973 RLR, 50.
(iii) Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Union Territory of Chhatisgarh 1992(2) CC Cases 562(HC)
(iv) Puran Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) RCR, 464.
stating that in terms of the abovesaid judgments the prosecution was required to prove the guilty intention on the part of the accused and without proving the same, even if, it was proved that the accused was possessing counterfeit currency, he could not be held guilty for the same.
32. As referred above, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have deposed on similar lines that on the day and the time in question accused was present at the LIC branch and had deposited LIC premium amount containing counterfeit currency. PW1 and PW2 stated that accused delivered 14 LIC policies for deposit of the premium amount and had tendered the requisite amount but out of the same 22 and 23 notes (45 in total) of Rs.500/ each were found to be counterfeit and accused was confronted with the same. They immediately informed their Administrative Officer about the same. They had all gone to the Chief Manager's office where accused had also made call to one of his clients. Thereafter, accused was asked to call any known person and he had chosen to call PW7. Accused had thereafter, given his written version Ex.PW25/A & Ex.PW25/B to the LIC officials admitting the said fake notes were given by him. In corroboration of prosecution story though PW3A admitted that accused had not SC no.:27533/2016 Page 14/20 delivered currency to cashiers in his presence but corroborated the aforesaid witnesses that accused had deposited LIC premium with PW1 & PW2, and he heard that some counterfeit currency was deposited and also that accused had admitted his fault in writing. PW7 also disputed that accused had admitted his guilt in his presence but has corroborated the prosecution story to the extent that accused was present at the said spot at the relevant time and accused had given something in writing on which he had appended his thumb impression and police took accused with them from the spot.
33. Accused also examined himself as DW1 and stated that he had deposited only genuine currency and PW1 & PW2 had issued receipts only after checking the same but after ten minutes PW2 called him to the counter and started abusing and threatening him. PW2 told that 23 notes of Rs.500/ were fake but he had told the witness that he could check the CCTV Cameras which would confirm that he had given genuine currency. PW2, thereafter, held him, beat him and took him to the Branch Manager. Thereafter, PW1 also came there and started beating him and abusing him. PW1 stated that 22 notes of Rs.500/ were fake. They all forced him to change the fake currency but he denied. LIC officials threatened to call police and they forced him to write confession letter pertaining to fake currency in his own handwriting and by mentioning the numbers of each currency. LIC officials had also asked him to call someone known to him and he had called PW7 who came to the office at around 3:45 pm. PW7 was asked to sign on the letter which was already written by him and PW7 being illiterate put his thumb impression on the same. Thereafter, both cashiers along with Branch Manager had gone to Canara Bank for checking the genuineness of the currency notes and returned after 1015 minutes. They informed the police around 5:00 pm who came at around 6:00 pm and took him SC no.:27533/2016 Page 15/20 to police station. Subsequently, LIC Premium Receipts were cancelled and he obtained information under the RTI Act Ex.DW1/1. He stated that his wife was LIC Agent and he used to deposit premium on her behalf in the nearby branch but the cashiers of the aforesaid LIC officer were irritated with his act and due to the aforesaid reason had falsely implicated him in the case. In crossexamination, stated that he had never made any complaint against PW1 and PW2 at any point of time. He admitted that he could deposit the entire premium amount of Rs.71,600/ at one counter. He volunteered that there was crowd at the counter of PW2. He denied that he had deposited the abovesaid amounts at two counters as he had mixed the counterfeit currency with genuine currency and to avoid their detection. He denied that he was neither beaten nor forcibly wrote the letter. He volunteered that the letter was written under force and he told this fact to the police. He admitted that the cancelled receipts were given by the cashier to the IO. He also denied that he had not disclosed any fact of pressure by the LIC officials to any authority including the Ld. Magistrate as he had made voluntary confession of his act. He denied that he had deposed falsely to save himself from the punishment of the offence.
34. It is thus claimed by accused that the bank officials had beaten him and threatened him and therefore, he had written Ex. PW25/A under pressure. This document is however an important aspect of the case and assumes greater importance for the reason that the accused had himself written the said statement mentioning serial number of all the counterfeit notes in presence of the aforesaid five witnesses and also much prior to the lodging of complaint or arrival of police.
35. As referred above, no material contradiction has been shown in the statement of any of the prosecution witnesses in regard to the execution of document SC no.:27533/2016 Page 16/20 Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B or accused having deposited counterfeit currency. Accused claimed PW1 or PW2 were irritated due to his insistence to deposit the premium amount of a different branch but there is no evidence to substantiate the said claim. However, even if this is presumed, there is no explanation why PW3 or PW3A would also have deposed falsely against the accused. Further PW7 had been called by the accused himself and he also did not state that accused was forcibly made to write any such letter or that there was any undue pressure on the accused at the said time.
There is no suggestion given to PW1 and PW2 disputing the denomination of the notes delivered by accused and there was no suggestion given to PW3A or PW7 about LIC officials having forcibly made accused to write Ex.PW25/A.
36. Accused had also stated that there were CCTV cameras installed in the LIC office but there is no proof about the same. On the contrary, all prosecution witnesses deposed similarly that there were no CCTV Cameras installed at LIC office / spot on the date in question.
37. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that accused had not given any fake currency but his genuine currency was changed by PW1 and PW2 and had falsely implicated the accused in the present case. It is stated that after accused had deposited the amount, he was issued receipts, thus, he had tendered the amount prior to issuance of the receipts and therefore, the concerned officials had checked the notes prior to accepting the same which means that the notes were genuine and only then they had been accepted by the concerned LIC Officials.
38. In this regard, it is important to note that PW1 was given suggestion in SC no.:27533/2016 Page 17/20 the crossexamination that "it is correct that before preparing the receipts, I did not receive the cash from the accused." Similarly, PW2 was also given a suggestion that "it is correct that I issued receipt of payment from my computer before taking amount of premium deposited by the accused" which clearly proves that LIC policy deposit receipts were issued prior to accused having deposited the amount and therefore, even as per accused checking of currency prior to issuance of receipts is ruled out. Further it is pleaded that PW1 and PW2 got irritated with the accused as he used to deposit premium amount of an agent belonging to another branch and their work had increased. But this plea does not inspire confidence as no normal individual even if the contention is accepted as correct, would go to such an extent to falsely implicate the accused in such serious offence. This is otherwise also ruled out as PW3 & PW3A were present in the said LIC office at the time of the offence and have confirmed PW1 & PW2's version. Further accused had called PW7 to the said spot and the said witness also did not state that accused had been falsely implicated in the case.
39. Accused's written version of deposit of counterfeit notes is Ex.PW25/A. The same was witnessed by PW7. PW7 tried to state that he was not aware of the contents of the same but he did not explain why he had been called to the said office and why he had put his thumb impression if he was unaware about the said incident of the date in question and why police had apprehended and taken accused with them at the said time.
40. It is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deposited an amount of about Rs.71,600/ for his LIC policies at two counters and 45 notes of Rs.500/ currency (as per serial number mentioned in Ex.PW25/A & Ex.PW25/B) were suspected to be fake.
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 18/2041. The said recovered notes Ex.P8 were sent to Govt. Press, Nasik and the Technical Expert examined the same and found that the aforesaid 45 currency notes of Rs.500/ each were found to be counterfeit and had submitted his report Ex.PW9/A. The remaining currency deposited by the accused along with Ex.P8, were found to be genuine and the report being Ex.PW5/B.
42. In regard to the contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused that mere possession of counterfeit notes is not sufficient and prosecution is further required to prove guilty intention of accused or at least prove the fact that he had knowledge that the said notes were counterfeit.
43. As referred by accused himself, the Hon'ble High Court in 2010(1) JCC 409 "Anis & Anr. Vs. State NCT of Delhi", has held that if the person found in possession of such counterfeit notes does not tell the Court as to how he had come into their possession and chooses to altogether deny his possession of such currency notes, the Court would be justified in inferring that he had received those notes from someone and that is how he came into possession of those notes. Further the fact as to how the person came into possession of those currency notes is a fact which is only in the knowledge of said person and in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act the burden of proving such fact is upon him.
As per the facts of the present case, even though accused could have deposited the entire amount at one counter but had chosen to deposit the same at two counters which suggests that he might have been trying to create such conditions by which the counterfeit currency in question may not be discovered. Further, when the said fact of the currency being counterfeit was brought to the knowledge of the accused, accused initially stated that the said notes were given to him by policy SC no.:27533/2016 Page 19/20 holders and had also talked with one of the policy holders on phone but thereafter he delivered his hand written letter admitting the possession and delivery of counterfeit currency in question. Accused during the trial has taken a stand that he had delivered genuine currency and not the counterfeit currency but PW1 & PW2 who were themselves running fake currency racket has falsely implicated in the case. There is however no proof or circumstances shown to prove the said defence and there is also no reason shown or prove to doubt the testimony of aforesaid eyewitnesses.
44. In the above referred facts and circumstances of case and the fact that when accused was confronted with the situation and was given opportunity to rectify the mistake, he had chosen to do nothing and instead submitted his written version admitting the guilt but during the trial took a stand that he was falsely implicated in the case. Consequently, the guilty intention of the accused is evident from the aforesaid acts and conduct of the accused and it can be easily presumed that accused despite being aware of the counterfeit currency, had chosen to deposit the same with PW1 & PW2.
45. Accordingly, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had delivered and used 45 counterfeit currency notes Ex.P8 for LIC premium deposit with PW1 & PW2 and is thus liable for the offence of using the counterfeit currency notes despite being aware of the same being counterfeit.
Accused is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC.
Announced in the open court (DINESH BHATT)
on 27th Day of January 2017 ASJ/Delhi/27.01.2017
SC no.:27533/2016 Page 20/20