Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2016
CRR-1251-2016
(NITIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
13-12-2016
Shri Bhaskar Agarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
In this criminal revision petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.06.2016, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 489 (C) and 489 (D) of IPC. According to the facts, on a secret information, police raided at the house of the petitioner and found 7 fake currency notes alongwith scissor, cutter, printer, gum, green papers. As alleged, the petitioner ran away from the spot and arrested later on. On his disclosure 5 fake currency notes, scissor, cutter, green papers were recoverd and seized. As per report of Bank Note Press, Dewas, the seized notes were found counterfeited. The police chargesheeted the petitioner alongwith one Kiran.
Grounds for the revision are that no seizure has been made at the instance of the petitioner. It is mentioned in the examination report of the suspected bank note that the seized currency notes were very poor in quality and therefore, the use of the same in a common market seems highly improbable. Facts stated in the charge-sheet does not constitute any offence punishable under Section 489-D of the IPC and that the learned trial Court did not considered that no computers or printers have been seized from the petitioner and printer solely can not be used to print or make any document. Further, seized green papers and printer were not sent by the prosecution for obtaining opinion in respect to the fact that whether the same can be used for making counterfeit currency notes. It is further submitted that exclusive possession of the articles seized from the petitioner is not proved in this case, therefore, petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly admitted that looking to the evidence collected during the investigation, he does not want to press the charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of the IPC. Thus, the only charge framed under Section 489-D remains for consideration.
Section 489-D of IPC reads as under:
"489-D. Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency-notes or bank- notes.âWhoever makes, or performs, any part of the process of making, or buys or sells or disposes of, or has in his possession, any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for forging or counterfeiting any currency- note or bank-note, 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."
As revealed from the documents submitted with the charge-sheet, at the time of raid the police found and seized 7 fake currency notes, some genuine notes alongwith 3 cutters, six inches scale (one), scissor, marker of black colour, fevi quick (Gum), epson printer and two colour photographes of the petitioner, but the petitioner ran away from the spot. Later on, he was caught by the police and on his disclosure 5 counterfeited notes of Rs.100/- denomination, 20 papers of light green colour, one cutter, six inches scale (one), marker and feviquick (Gum) kept in a black bag were seized. All these articles recovered from the possession of the petitioner and are sufficient to show primafacie that the accused/petitioner was indulged in making or performing any part or process of making counterfeit currency notes.
Considering the above evidence, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in framing the charge under Section 489-D of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 421/2013 & 471/2013 (R.Raja @ Sridhar and others vs. The Inspector of Police CBCID, Chennai) reported in 2014 SSC Online Mad 2293, and in Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2006 (Vijaybhai Babubhai Pattani vs. State of Gujarat) reported in 2015 SCC Online Guj 4988, but both these citations related to the final conclusion and are also distinguishable on the facts, therefore, not applicable in the present case. On due consideration, I find that the present petition is bereft of merits and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed hereby.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE