Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramniwas Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018
1
Cr.A.6190/2017
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Ramniwas Meena v. State of MP.
18.05.2018
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant
Ramniwas Meena.
Shri R. K. Awasthy, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A. No. 25445/17 filed u/s. 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C alleged first application in this Criminal Appeal on behalf of appellant for suspension of custodial sentence and the record of the trial court including impugned judgment and objection/reply filed on behalf of respondent/State are also perused.
Appellant Ramniwas has been convicted and sentenced by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide judgment dated 13.12. 2017 passed in session trial no. 49/2010, u/s. 489-B of the IPC to undergo 10 years RI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation and u/s. 489-C of the IPC to undergo 7 years RI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation and it is also directed that main jail sentences of the appellant to run concurrently.
Appearing counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the cases of Panna Lal Gupta v. State of Sikkim (2010) CRI. L.J. 825), M. Mammutti v. State of Karnanata ( AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1705) and Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 642) contended that in the light of above mentioned citations for convicting accused u/s. 489-B and 489-C of the IPC, it was necessary for the 2 Cr.A.6190/2017 prosecution to prove that the appellant Ramnivas was knowing or having reason to believe that the currency notes which he was having were forged or counterfeit and there was no reliable or trustworthy evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court, which could demonstrate that appellant Ramniwas was knowing or having reasons to believe that the currency notes possessed by him were forged or counterfeit and in absence of positive evidence, trial court erred in convicting and sentencing him for above mentioned offences as there was no evidence against the appellant Ramniwas that he even tried to use fake or counterfeit currency notes as genuine currency. It is further argued that according to case of prosecution firstly two co-accused persons Mustaqim and Azad were caught hold with fake or counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs. 5,00/-and on the basis of disclosure statement given by above mentioned Mustaqim and Azad, police party caught hold three persons, namely, Maya, Manoj and Ramniwas from a place about 100 meters before village Bamori in the way, and thereafter from the left pocket of pant of appellant 40 notess of denomination of Rs. 5,00/- were seized from appellant Ramniwas, and though the examined panch witness Rakesh (PW-3) relating to seizure memo (Ex. P-9) did not support the prosecution case and even denied from identifying the appellant at the time of recording of his evidence and Rakesh (PW-3) was declared hostile by the prosecution and another panch witness Dinesh (PW-9) of seizure memo, was not produced before the trial court as a witness, and the trial court only on the basis of evidence of seizing officer, S.H.O Police Station, Kumbhraj found proved that in total 3 Cr.A.6190/2017 40 fake or counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs. 5,00/- were seized from the appellant, therefore, it is vehemently argued that appellant Ramniwas is having a fit case for granting him benefit of suspension of his jail sentence, as there is no possibility of early hearing of this Criminal Appeal before this court. Hence it is prayed that his jail sentence be suspended.
On the other hand, above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the public prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent/State on grounds that on the basis of prior disclosure statements of Mustaqim and Azad, present appellant was caught with two other co- accused persons Maya alias Mrityunjay and Manoj and fake or counterfeit currency notes were separately seized from each of the co-accused persons, namely, Mustaqim, Azad Khan, Maya alias Mrityunjay and Manoj and except present appellant Ramniwas three co-accused persons Mustaqim, Maya alias Mrityunjay and Manoj were resident of another State Rajasthan and Azad Khan was resident of District Mandsaur and only appellant was resident of District Guna. It is further argued that intention or knowledge of any accused being an internal component of any person, its direct evidence could not be produced. But at the same time and place appellant Ramniwas was caught hold with Manoj, who was separately having in total 40 notes of same denomination and at the same time and place Maya alias Mrityunjay was having in total 100 such forged or counterfeit notes of same denomination and according to case of prosecution Maya alias Mrityunjay is the main accused, who was circulating the fake or counterfeit currency notes in different parts of the country and at the same time and place seizure of 4 Cr.A.6190/2017 such fake or counterfeit currency notes from each of the three persons including the present appellant Ramniwas, reveal their required knowledge or belief. In such facts and circumstances, it could be safely presumed that appellant was having requisite knowledge or belief that he was possessing fake or counterfeit currency notes. It is further argued on behalf of prosecution that though, in total, five accused persons were arrested but during trial all the other four accused persons Mustaqimm, Azad Khan, Maya alias Mrityunjay and Manoj absconded and trial court has passed impugned judgment only in relation to present appellant. Hence, it is vehemently contended that if appellant's custodial jail sentence is suspended, then there is possibility that appellant Ramniwas will also run away from justice like other co-accused persons.
Considering the rival contentions advanced by counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merits of the case as it is well established that the factum of seizure could be established only on the basis of evidence of departmental or police officer, if his evidence otherwise appears to be totally trustworthy, I am of the considered opinion that appellant Ramniwas's case does not appear fit for granting him benefit of suspension of his jail sentence, as other co-accused persons who were given benefit of regular bail during trial have already absconded. Consequently, I.A. No. 25445/17 filed u/s. 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C on behalf of appellant is dismissed.
Office is directed to list this admitted Criminal Appeal for final hearing in due course.
Cc as per rules.
(Ashok Kumar Joshi)
ar Judge
Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN
Date: 2018.05.21 18:35:06 +05'30'