Delhi District Court
22. The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In ... vs . State Of on 29 September, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 207/2007
PS : Shahdara, Delhi
U/s : 489-B/489-C IPC
Unique Case ID : 02402R0071142009
In the matter of
State
Versus
Ajaharuddin
S/o Mohd. Sabir
R/o H.No. 1336, Gali No. 43
Maher Kathi Jagrabad
Seelampur, Delhi. .........Accused
Session Case No. : 32/2010
Date of Institution : 21.02.2009
Date of Committal : 21.08.2009
Date of reserving judgment/order : 29.09.2011
Date of pronouncement : 29.09.2011
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Ajaharuddin was sent up to stand trial by police of PS: Shahdara , Delhi, for offence punishable under Section :
489-B/489-C IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09.05.2007, FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 1 of 17 2 on the receipt of DD No. 17-A, S.I Bhupender Singh and Ct. Pankaj reached at Canara Bank, Babarpur Road, Rohtash Nagar Shahdara, Delhi, where Chief Manager of Canara Bank met him and produced before him accused Ajaharuddin alongwith three currency notes of Rs.1,000/- (each), on which the stamp of forged notes was affixed. Currency notes were seized and accused was arrested. FIR was registered against accused Ajaharuddin. His co-accused Mukaddam could not be arrested and he was declared proclaimed offender and charge- sheet was filed against accused Ajaharuddin. Currency notes were sent to FSL and they were found to be counterfeit currency notes.
3. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 21.08.2009.
4. My Ld. Predecessor, vide order dated 10.11.2009, after finding prima-facie offence, charged accused Ajaharuddin for offences punishable U/s 489B/489C IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Subsequently, during the course of trial, co-accused Mukaddam was also arrested. However, vide order 26.07.2011, accused Mukaddam was discharged.
FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 2 of 173
6. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 08 witnesses.
7. The prosecution examined following material witnesses:
i. PW-1 Sh. Sachidanandan K. was the Chief Manger of Canara Bank. He proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A. He also handed over the pay-in slip Ex.PW1/B filled and signed by accused, acknowledgment receipt Ex.PW1/C of currency notes signed by Ms. Nirmal Sharma Cashier, account details Ex.PW1/D signed by him, to the IO. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Ajaharuddin as Ex.PW1/F, personal search memo vide Ex.PW1/G and seizure memo of fake currency notes as Ex.PW1/H. He identified the currency notes having stamp 'forged note' as Ex.PW1/P1, PW1/P2 and PW1/P3.
ii. PW-2 Smt. Nirmal Sharma was the cashier at Canara Bank. She partly turned hostile towards the prosecution on the point of identity of accused and some investigation.
iii. PW-4 Mohd. Tahir is the brother of accused Ajaharuddin who sent accused Ajaharuddin to deposit FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 3 of 17 4 Rs.3000/- in the denomination of Rs.1000/- (each) in his account at Canara Bank, Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara.
8. The prosecution examined following formal witnesses:
i. PW-3 H.C Arvind Parashar was the MHC(M) with whom case property was deposited in the malkhana. He also sent the same to CFSL Hyderabad through H.C Balraj. He proved the copy of relevant entry as Ex.PW3/A and copy of RC as Ex.PW3/B ii. PW-7 ASI Rakesh Kumari was the duty officer, who on the basis of rukka, recorded formal FIR of this case and proved the computerized copy of same as Ex.PW7/A. He also proved his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/A at point X to X. He also recorded DD No. 17-A which is Ex.PW7/C.
9. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of investigation :
i. PW-5 Ct. Pankaj Kumar is the witness of arrest of accused Ajaharuddin, seizure of acknowledgment receipt, account paying slip and detail of account No. 38156 vide and seizure of three currency notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/- each vide Ex.PW1/H. He FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 4 of 17 5 also got the FIR registered from the Police Station. He proved the disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW5/A. ii. PW-6 H.C Upinder who was in the investigation with IO. He is witness of recording of disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW6/A. iii. PW-8 S.I Bhoopendra Kumar is the Investigating officer who in addition to other memos proved his endorsement on the complaint vide Ex.PW8/A, site plan prepared at instance of Chief Manager as Ex.PW8/B and CFSL report as Ex.PW8/C.
10. After conclusion of the Prosecution Evidence, Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC, wherein, accused denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. He choses not to lead defence evidence.
11. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sarfraz Asif, Advocate for accused. I have also gone through the record.
12. PW-2 Smt. Nirmal Sharma testified that about three years ago, when she was posted as Cashier, in the Canara Bank Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara Branch, one boy came to her at cash counter FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 5 of 17 6 and he given her three currency notes of Rs.1000/- each alongwith deposit slip. On checking, all the three currency notes appeared to be fake. She went to Manager and informed him in this regard. Thereafter she returned back to her seat. She handed over the currency notes and deposit slip to the manager and the boy was asked to go to the Manager. The boy went to the Manager Mr. S. V. Sharma. Police was called in the bank. Police officials reached at the bank. She stated that she does not know as to what police did. She does not remember the account number in which the boy wanted to deposit the money. She also cannot identify the boy, who came to her. She also cannot identify the currency notes and deposit slip.
13. PW-2 Smt. Nirmal Sharma was declared hostile by Ld. Addl.
P.P for the State. In her cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, she categorically denied that she had stated to the police the name of accused, number of currency notes and account number in which said currency notes to be deposited. She also denied that accused was handing over in her presence and FIR was registered. She, however, admitted that acknowledgment receipt to be issued to the tenderer of counterfeit bank notes bears her signatures which was prepared by Bank manager. She stated that she does not remember whether the pay-in slip Ex.PW1/B was produced by FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 6 of 17 7 accused Azhar to her at cash counter alongwith fake currency notes. She admitted that document Ex.PW1/D was prepared by Chief Manager K. Sachidanandan and the same was produced to the police official. She denied the suggestion that accused Ajaharuddin was same person who produced the currency notes to her.
14. PW-1 Sh. Sachidanandan. K., Chief Manager testified that on 09.5.2007, he was posted as Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Rohtas Nagar Branch, Babarpur Road, Shahdara, Delhi. On that day, accused Azhar came to their bank to deposit Rs. 3000/- cash in the denomination of Rs.1000/- (each) in SB account no. 38156 which was in the name of Tahir. He tendered the same at the cash counter to the concerned clerk Ms. Nirmal Sharma, who on checking found the currency notes to be fake. She informed him in this regard. They also checked the same from ultra violet lamps and found the same to be fake. They put the seal of 'forged notes' on face of the notes. They called the police. He handed over the fake currency notes to the IO. He made the complaint to the IO which is Ex.PW-1/A. He also handed over the pay in slip Ex.PW-1/B filled and signed by the accused, acknowledgment receipt Ex.PW-1/C of currency notes signed by Ms. Nirmal Sharma Cashier at point A, account details Ex.PW-1/D signed FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 7 of 17 8 by me at point A, to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/E. IO got lodge the FIR. IO arrested accused Mohd. Ajaharuddin @ Azhar.
15. PW-4 Mohd. Tahir testified that he has account no. 38156 at Canara Bank Rohtas Nagar Shahdara, Delhi. On 8.5.2007, he had sent his brother Ajaharuddin to deposit Rs.3000/-, in the denomination of Rs.1000/- each, in his account at above-said branch. On the same day, he received telephonic call of his brother Ajaharuddin that he had been apprehended by the bank officials and they are telling that these not are fake. He went to the police station alongwith his family members. He (Ajaharuddin) was arrested by the police. Police officials had also told him that these notes are faked currency notes. He told them that he does not know about the same whether they are fake or genuine and they are doing wrong.
16. PW-8 IO/S.I Bhoopendra Kumar testified that on 09.05.2007, on receipt of DD No. 17-A, he reached at Canara Bank Rohtash Nagar Branch where, he called Ct. Pankaj who came there. They met with Chief Manager K. Sachidanandan who produced accused Azharuddin alongwith three fake currency notes of Rs. 1000/- each which were having the bank seal of forged currency notes in English as well as in Hindi. He seized FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 8 of 17 9 the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H. Sh. K. Sachidanandan had also given him his written complaint. He endorsed the same vide my endorsement Ex.PW8/A and sent the same to PS through Ct. Pankaj for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Pankaj came back at Canara Bank and handed over me copy of FIR and rukka. He recorded the statement of cashier Smt. Nirmal Sharma. He prepared site plan at the instance of Chief Manager/complainant which is Ex.PW8/B. He also produced him some documents i.e acknowledgment receipt to be issued to the tenderer of counterfeit bank notes Ex.PW1/C, paying-in slip Ex.PW1/B and detail of the account No. 38156 Ex.PW1/D furnished by Chief Manager/complainant. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, he interrogated accused Azharuddin and arrested him. Accused Azharuddin confessed the guilt and his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A was recorded. Thereafter, in search of the co-accused i.e brother of accused namely Jahid, they reached at his house with accused Azharuddin at Jafrabad but he could not be found there. One Tahir who is also brother of Azharuddin met them there. He recorded his statement. He was the account holder of the account in which accused tried to deposit three fake currency notes. He further stated that during the PC remand on 11.05.07, accused FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 9 of 17 10 Azharuddin had given him disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A and he disclosed the name of co-accused Mukadam from whom he received the said currency notes. Thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Mukadam at Bhagirathi Vihar but he could not be found there.
17. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that mens rea is essential to prove offence U/s 489B/489C IPC. Further conduct of accused that he did not run away after counter clerk found currency notes to be fake and kept standing there and on asking of counter clerk, went himself to the Chief Manager shows that he has no knowledge about the fake currency notes. It is further submitted that he was depositing the currency notes in the bank in the account of his own brother and PW-4 Mohd. Tahir i.e his brother has also stated that he has sent his brother to deposit the same in the bank. Accused had genuinely believed that the currency notes were genuine currency notes and therefore, there was no mens rea of using the same as genuine. Further, the currency notes were not visible by naked eye as fake as Bank itself found it to be fake under ultra violet rays. Therefore, accused is entitle to acquittal.
18. PW-1 Sh. Sachidanandan K. in his cross-examination has stated that he was sitting in his cabin in the bank. There were FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 10 of 17 11 about 15/20 employees in the bank. Cashier brought him the forged currency notes and informed. He admitted that the notes were not tendered to him by the accused. It was 11:00/12:00 noon when the cashier came to him. There were many customers present in the bank at that time. He immediately called the police. The cashier had put the stamp of 'Forged Note' on the currency notes before the arrival of police. The stamp was not taken into possession by police nor handed over by them. He admitted that all the proceedings were conducted in the police station. He did not sign on the fake currency notes. IO did not keep the currency notes in a sealed parcel. None from the public persons was joined in the investigation by the police officials. He does not know whether the account holder of account no. 38156 was interrogated by police officials or not.
19. PW-8 S.I Bhoopendra Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that he made inquiry from Bank official that whether accused had made effort to run away from the spot during the period when the cashier had gone to inform the Bank Manager regarding fake currency notes. The Bank Manager told him that there is one guard in the Bank and running away is not possible. Guard remains on the main gate and is not stationed near the cashier. He did not record the statement of the guard.
FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 11 of 1712 The guard was instructed by the Manager to keep watch on the accused. He had not recorded the statement of guard or Manager in this respect. He denied the suggestion that Manager had not stated so to him and hence, he had not recorded his statement to this effect. He admitted that deposit slip is of the same date of the arrest. He also admitted that the source of supply of fake currency notes could not be traced. He also admitted that the place of printing of fake currency could also not be traced. He denied the suggestion that the fake currency notes came in the hands of the accused in the normal course of business and he had no means to know whether it is fake or genuine currency notes. He further denied the suggestion that accused had innocently gone to the bank for depositing the same believing it to be genuine currency notes and there was no intention on the part of accused to deposit the fake currency notes.
20. Section 489-B IPC reads as under -:
Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes - Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.] FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 12 of 17 13
21. Section 489-C IPC reads as under -:
Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank- notes - Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both]
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umashankar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001 Supp (3) SCR 646 has observed as under :-
To quote A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, shows that mens rea of offences under Section 489-B and 489-C is, "knowing or having reason to believe the currency-notes or bank notes to be forged or counterfeit". Without the afore-mentioned mes rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B of IPC. So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489-C in the absence of the mes rea, noted above.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Hashim Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2005 SC 128 (1) reiterated the same that possession and knowledge that currency notes were counterfeited notes are necessary to constitute the offence.
FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 13 of 1714
24. In the present case, there was three currency notes of Rs.
1000/- (each) which were said to be deposited by the accused in bank account of his own brother. Brother of accused has been examined as PW-4 Mohd. Tahir and he categorically stated that he has sent his brother with three currency notes to deposit the same in the Bank. PW-2 Smt. Nirmala, Counter clerk has stated that on checking all the three currency notes, she found that currency notes appear to be fake. She went to Manager and informed him in this regard and returned back to her seat and asked the boy to go to the Manager. Boy went to the Manager and thereafter, police was called. PW-1 Sh. Sachidanandan K. claims that they checked the currency notes from ultra violet lamps and found the same to be fake and put the seal of 'forged notes' on the face of the notes.
25. There were only three currency notes and the counter clerk herself shows that they appears to be fake and she had gone to the Bank Manager who checked the same under ultra violet rays. Meaning thereby that the common man cannot discern with his naked eyes that the currency notes are fake.
26. PW-8 IO/S.I Bhoopendra Kumar in his cross-examination has stated that he made inquiry from Bank official that whether accused had made effort to run away from the spot during the FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 14 of 17 15 period when the cashier had gone to inform the Bank Manager regarding fake currency notes. The Bank Manager told him that there is one guard in the Bank and running away is not possible. Guard remains on the main gate and is not stationed near the cashier.
27. Guard normally remains outside the gate but even if the guard was standing inside the gate, the person standing at the counter of the cashier may not be visible to the guard when there were many customers in the bank. During the period the cashier had gone to the Bank Manager there was chances of escape. The conduct of the accused that he kept standing at the counter and when cashier came back and on her instruction, he went to Bank Manager voluntarily. He was not detained or forcibly taken to Bank Manager would only show that he believed the currency notes to be genuine. If those currency notes were believed to be fake, then, his brother would not have sent his own real brother to deposit the same in his own account.
28. Accused Ajaharuddin in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he was sent by his brother to Canara Bank to deposit Rs.3000/- in his brother's account. Cashier told him that currency notes given by him are fake. She went inside to Chief Manager's room. He waited there for ten minutes and FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 15 of 17 16 she came and told him that she (cashier) will not deposit the money and she will torn those notes. Then, he insisted them to return those currency notes to him, so that he will be able to return the same to his brother because if he will not return the money to his brother, he will beat him and during this, some altercation took place. They called police and police took him to PS and he was falsely arrested. He has no knowledge and intention to deposit the fake currency notes in the bank. This version of accused appears to be plausible under the circumstances.
29. Keeping in view the number of currency notes, the circumstances and the conduct of the accused, it cannot be gathered that accused was knowing or had reason to believe the currency notes to be forged one. Although, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that accused had tendered the counterfeit currency notes at the bank. However, prosecution has failed to establish on record the necessary mens rea to constitute the offence.
30. Accordingly, as per the discussion above, I am of the opinion that accused Ajaharuddin is entitled to benefit of doubt. He is accordingly acquitted of the charges. His bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Case property, if any, be FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 16 of 17 17 destroyed after the expiry of appeal period. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e on 29.09.2011 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-04/NE/KKD/DELHI FIR No.:.207/2007, PS : Shahdara, Delhi Page 17 of 17