Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Raj Kumar @ Sunil S/O Sh. Ram Kumar, on 22 August, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAGH SINGH PUNIA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 355/06
Date of Institution : 07.09.06
Date on which reserved for order :20.08.2008
Date of Delivery of Judgment : 22.08.2008
State Vs. 1. Raj Kumar @ Sunil S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o B1/192, Gali No.10,
Vikas Vihar, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Kasim S/o Nasim,
Kasba Kerana, PS Kerana,
District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
FIR No. 285/04
PS Vivek Vihar
U/s 489C/489D IPC.
J U D G E M E N T : Case of the prosecution in brief as set out in the report under section 173 Cr.PC is as follows:
1. On 10.07.2004, SI Randhir Singh was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Pankaj and was present near Mosque, Pratap Khand. At about 2:30 pm, a secret informer informed him that two young boys will come from the side of Jhilmil Industrial Area via culvert of Pratap Khand and will be having fake currency notes of, denomination of Rs. 100/ and they are about to deliver the same to some other person. SI Randhir Singh asked 34 passersby to join the investigation after disclosing them about the secret information, but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses and showing their genuine difficulties. A raiding party was formed, consisting of police officials and nakabandhi was done.
2. At about 3:00 pm, two young boys came from above mentioned side of industrial area via culvert and were apprehended at the instance of secret informer. Their names were disclosed as Kasim S/o Nasim and Raj Kmar @ Sunil S/o Ram Kumar. On cursory search, from the right side pocket of the pant of accused Kasim, one white colour envelop was recovered. On checking, it was found containing 125 notes of Rs. 100/ in denomination, which were fake. 69 currency notes were having the serial number as 5QU 370926, 32 notes were having the number as 5RD 265925, 24 notes were having the serial number as 8BH 267754.
3. On the search of accused Raj Kumar from his right side pocket of the pant 169 notes of Rs. 100/ denomination were recovered, which were kept by him in a white colour envelop. 35 notes out of the above were having serial number as 8NQ 064610, 56 notes were having serial number as 2EE 235221, 76 notes were having the serial number as 6WS 138569 and 2 notes were having the serial number as 1SD 653610.
4. On interrogation, accused persons disclosed that the notes are fake ones. The notes were kept in the same paper envelops and were converted into a separate parcel. Every parcel was sealed with the seal of RS and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Pankaj.
5. I.O prepared rukka Ex.PW4/C and sent Ct. Pankaj for registration of the case. Case was registered vide DD No.24A, bearing FIR No.284/04, under section 489C. Further investigation of this case was handed over to ASI Bhoop Singh.
6. ASI Bhoop Singh and Ct. Pankaj came to the spot. Accused along with the documents of the case were handed over to ASI Bhoop Singh. ASI Bhoop Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Randhir Singh and recorded the statements. Accused persons were interrogated and arrested in this case. Accused persons made disclosure statement and pointed out a shop in the residential house of accused. A printer was recovered, which was being used for printing of notes, details with respect to which have been given in Ex.PW6/B. The notes were got examined from the cashier, who opined that all the notes except one Rs. 500/ note bearing No. 66B 751577 were fake currency notes. After completion of the investigation challan was got filed through SHO.
7. Ld. MM after compliance of the provision of 207 Cr.PC, committed this case to the court of Sessions, which was ultimately assigned to the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
8. After hearing the arguments on the point of charge, offences punishable under section 489C and 489D were framed against the accused persons on 20.11.2004, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution in this case examined PW1 SI Inder Pal, PW2 Trilok Raj, PW3 HC Jagpal Singh, PW4 SI Randhir Singh, PW5 Ct. Pankaj and PW6 ASI Bhoop Singh in this case.
10. PW1 SI Inder Pal, the duty officer has proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW2 Trilok Raj is the treasurer of RBI, who has testified that Bhoop Singh ASI had produced before him, for examination, currency notes which he found fake after examination. He has proved his report as Ex.PW2/A. Details of currency notes have been proved by this witness vide Ex.PW2/B.
11. PW3 HC Jagpal Singh is malkhana mohrer, who has proved the deposit of three duly sealed parcel with the seal of RS and one parcel sealed with the seal of BS. This witness has also testified that one printer/scanner was also deposited with him. He has further testified that aforesaid parcels were taken by ASI Bhoop Singh on 20.08.2004 and the same were returned duly sealed with the seal of BS. That on 30.09.2004, the aforesaid three parcels were sent to Nasik through Ct. Nasib Singh in an intact condition. This witness further testified that Ct. Nasib Singh deposited the copy of road certificate. This witness has proved the photo copy of entries recorded in register No.19 vide Ex.PW3/A.
12. PW4 Randhir Singh SI has testified in consonance with his complaint addressed to duty officer (rukka). This witness has proved the seizure memo concerning recovery of notes from accused Kasim as Ex.PW4/A, seizure memo of recovered notes from accused Raj Kumar as Ex.PW4/B and rukka as Ex.PW4/C. This witness has identified the currency notes as the same, which were recovered from accused persons. Currency notes recovered from the possession of accused Raj Kumar have been proved as Ex.P1 to P169. Currency notes recovered from the possession of accused Kasim have been proved as Ex.P170 to P294.
13. PW5 Ct. Pankaj has testified on the similar lines of PW4 SI Randhir Singh. This witness has proved the disclosure statement of Raj Kumar as Ex.PW5/A, accused Kasim as Ex.PW5/B and arrest memos as Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D. Personal search memos have been proved as Ex.PW5/C1 and Ex.PW5/D1.
14. PW6 ASI Bhoop Singh is the I.O of the case, who has testified about the manner in which investigation was conducted by him. This witness has testified inconsonance with the case of the prosecution as put forth in the report under section 173 Cr.PC. This witness has proved the preparation of site plan of place of recovery as Ex.PW6/C. This witness has also testified that case property was deposited with malkhana mohrer. This witness has also testified that on 20.08.2004, he had produced the recovered forged notes parcel before Sh. Tilak Raj, Treasurer RBI and on checking he found the notes as fake. This witness has proved the report in this regard as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. This witness further testified that he affixed his seal on all the parcels and deposited the parcels in the malkhana. This witness has also testified that parcels of the recovered notes were sent to Nasik and report from Nasik was received, which confirms about notes being forged ones. This witness has identified the printer and currency notes as the same, which were recovered from the possession of and at the instance of the accused persons.
15. Statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.PC without oath in order to give an opportunity to the accused persons to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against them. Accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and have submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Supplementary statements under section 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 14.7.2008, wherein report of Nasik security press was put to the accused which is admissible as per section 292 Cr.PC.
16. Arguments were heard at the bar. Ld. Counsel Sh. Sanjay Gupta for accused Kasim has not only filed the written arguments, but has advanced oral arguments also. Ld. counsel Sh. Dasa Ram was also heard. He has adopted the arguments of Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. Crux of the written arguments is that from the testimony of PW2, it cannot be said that currency notes were fake ones. It has been asserted that PW2 was not a competent witness to give opinion regarding the notes. It is also asserted that discrepancies in currency notes have not been talked about in Ex.PW2/A. That there should have been one more witness from Government Press Devas, M.P or from Nasik.
17. It has been asserted that possibility of tempering is there as case property was produced before PW2 on 20.08.2004, whereas the incident pertains to 10.07.2004. It has also been asserted that case property was sent to Nasik on 30.07.2004 in pursuance of report of PW2, but the same has not been produced on record, there was delay in sending the parcel to to RBI which has not been explained, report of the office of Nasik has been intentionally withheld and it cannot be said that notes were fake. That there is no mention about resealing of parcels and there are chances of tempering with. Ct. Nasib Singh, who had taken parcels to Nasik has not been examined and road certificate has not been produced. It has been asserted that proper link evidence is not produced and accused are entitled to the benefit of the same.
18. It has been argued that search was not offered to the accused persons by the police officials before recovery which vitiates the recovery. It has also been asserted that recovery memos Ex.PW4/A and PW4/B bear FIR numbers and particulars which could not have been there and this establishes that these memos were prepared subsequently. Ex.PW3/A shows the falsity of the prosecution case as the name of depositor has been shown as SI Randhir Singh, where as case property was deposited by ASI Bhoop Singh. That first para of cross examination of PW5 shows that story of secret informer is nothing but an illusion and the same is made out clear from the cross examination of PW5. That PW5 has shown his ignorance to material questions and has adopted the easy method of escape answering in the form of 'I do not recollect'. That printer was not sealed nor any report regarding it being in working condition was obtained, the nexus of the alleged recoveries has not been established with the printer, no public witness was joined and mere possession does not amount to commission of any offence. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments: Umashanker Vs. Chhattishgarh (AIR 2001 SC 3074), Jitender @ Jeetu Vs. State (2006 (3) JCC 1382), Radha Kishan Vs. State (2000(3) C.C. Cases HC18), State of Rajasthan Vs. Daulat Ram (AIR 1980 SC 1314), Lalji Shukla Vs. The State ( 2000(2) JCC 424 (Delhi), Prithvi Pal Singh @ Munna Vs. State (2000(2) C.C. Cases HC 174, Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State ( 1995(3) C.C. Cases 344 (HC).
19. Ld. PP on the other hand has refuted the arguments advanced by ld. Defence counsel and has submitted that prosecution has established its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts.
20. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. In order to establish an offence under section 489C, the prosecution has to prove the following counts:
(a) the currencynote or banknote in question was forged or counterfeit;
(b) the accused was in possession of the same;
(c) at the time of his possession, he knew, or he had reason to believe,
that it was forged or counterfeit; and
(d)he intended to use it as genuine or that it might be used as genuine. In order to establish an offence under section 489D, the prosecution has to prove the following counts:
(a) the thing in question was a machinery, instrument or material, necessary for, or used in, forging or counterfeiting a currencynote or banknote;
(b) the accused made, or performed, some part of the process of making, or bought, or sold, or disposed of, or had, in his possession, the machinery, instrument or material in question; and
(c) the intention of the accused was that such machinery, instrument or material might be used for the purpose of forging or counterfeiting currency notes or banknotes or that he knew, or he had reason to believe, that the same was intended to be used for such purpose.
21. I am of the considered view that prosecution has brought on record all the ingredients required under section 489C. The first witness in this regard is PW2 Sh. Trilok Raj. He has testified that on 20.08.2004, he had examined the currency notes in question on the request of ASI Bhoop Singh and had found that currency notes were fake. Testimony of this witness (particularly third and fourth line of his examinationinchief) has gone unchallanged and uncontroverted. It was not suggested to this witness that the currency notes in question were not found as being fake. This witness has proved his report as Ex.PW2/A and details of currency notes as Ex.PW2/B. No doubt this witness admitted in his crossexamination that he had not given any specific reasons for reaching his opinion and has not specified the discrepancies noted by him in the currency notes, still the testimony of PW2 cannot be brushed aside simply as so contended Sh. Sanjay Gupta and Sh. Dasa Ram, Advocates. Thus fakeness of currency notes stands established.
22. A perusal of the details of currency notes reveals that most of the notes were having the same serial number. Ex.PW2/B reveals that 69 notes of Rs. 100/ were having same number as 5QU 370926, 32 notes were having same number as 5RD 265925, 24 notes were having the same number as 8VH 267754, 35 notes were having same number as 8NQ 064610, 56 notes were having the same number as 2EE 235221, 76 notes were having the same number as 6WS 138569, 14 notes were having the same number as 8EV 640111 on top and 8EV 640140 on bottom. The above mentioned nature of the notes would have led even a layman with a bare working knowledge about the nature of currency notes, to come to a conclusion that the notes were counterfeit/fake/fabricated. It was this fact which compelled the defence advocate not to ask from PW2 about the specific reasons for reaching the conclusion.
23. Assuming for the sake of argument that the contention supra is tenable, still the same is of no help to the accused persons as there is other categorical evidence on record, which goes to show that accused persons were knowing or having reasons to believe that the currency notes were counterfeit/fake. The reason for saying so are given in succeeding paras.
24. PW4 SI Randhir Singh in his examinationinchief on 12/01.2007 has testified as follows: "on my personal observation also, I found that all recovered notes from both the accused persons were fake currency notes"
The above mentioned version of PW4 SI Randhir Singh has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted in cross examination. It was not got elicited from this witness as to how he formed the opinion concerning currency notes being counterfeit/fake.
25. PW6 in his examinationinchief on 25.10.2007 has also testified that currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused persons from the house of Raj Kumar were forged. This version has also gone unchallenged and uncontroverted as no suggestion was given that currency notes were not fake.
26. The versions of PW4 and PW6 found corroboration from the report of Indian Security Press, Nasik Road422101. This report is admissible in evidence as contemplated under section 292 Cr.PC. This report was put to the accused persons under section 313 Cr. PC and accused persons have not given any satisfactory reply to the same. In the report, the reasons concerning currency notes being fake have been given at page 1. The reason is to the effect that RBI seal is crude and lacks sharpness. It also mentions that scroll design is not matching when compared with genuine note. It also mentions that the printing of vertical lines on watermark are broken. It also mentions that the intaglio effect for the 'RESERVE BANK OF INDIA' and figure '100' is absent. It also mentions that Ashoka Pillar printing is crude and lacks sharpness. With respect to the back side of the currency notes of serial No. 5QU 370926 and 292 notes, it has been mentioned that printing colour do not match when compared with genuine note and the rainbow effect is harsh and crude. On page No.2, 3, 4 and 5, Sh. V.G. Maru, Assistant Works Manager, Gazetted Officer, Class1 has given the reasons with respect to fakeness of the currency notes and in view of the report no hesitation is left that currency notes were counterfeit/fake.
27. I deem it pertinent to observe at the cost of repetition that even if the report of Indian Security Press, Nasik Road is excluded from consideration, still the observation to the effect that currency notes are counterfeit/fake follows. A reasonable prudent man will conclude that if a person is having in his possession many currency notes having same number, he can be imputed with the knowledge to the effect that he knows or has reasons to believe that the currency notes are fake. Reliance in this regard is placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as M. Mammuti Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1979 (4) SCC 723.
28. I have carefully gone through the testimonies of PW4, PW5 and PW6, who are the material witnesses of the prosecution. I could not find any material contradiction in their versions concerning recovery of currency notes from the possession of the accused persons. They have remained consistent on their versions. From the testimony of PW4 to PW6 there is no hitch in concluding that accused persons were found in possession of the currency notes in question. PW4 SI Randhir Singh has given a detailed version about the recovery of 125 currency notes from accused Kasim. He has also deposed about recovery of 169 currency notes from accused Raj Kumar. During crossexamination this witness could not be shaken qua recovery aspect. Similarly PW5 Pankaj has not been shaken in his crossexamination and testimony of PW5 find full corroboration from the testimony of PW4 as far as the material question of recovery of fake notes from the possession of the accused persons is concerned.
29. Not only this testimony of PW6 goes to establish that at the instance of the accused persons, fake currency notes were recovered from the house of the accused Raj Kumar. This fact ensures that accused persons have not been falsely implicated by the police officials as had it been so, then recovery at the instance of accused persons from the house of Raj Kumar would not have taken place. So, I have no hesitation in returning a finding about the guilt of the accused persons for the above mentioned offence.
30. PW4 testified that no notice was given to refusing persons, shops and main roads were nearby, no one was joined after first refusal, personal search was not offered, writing work was done near the culvert on a vacant plot and seal was returned after 56 days. This version of PW4 finds corroboration in material particulars from the testimony of other witnesses. For the purpose of particular mention I am observing that PW4 and PW5 have given almost identical version about secret informer, which ensures that there is no false implication. They have also given identical version qua seal, time of taking of rukka and return and there being nothing in the hands of the accused persons. This fact also reaffirms the conclusion of mine about involvement of the accused persons in the commission of offence. Not only this, there is similarity in the version of PW5 and PW6 concerning mode of transport being a TSR in which they went to Uttam Nagar.
31. Coming to arguments of the accused persons. Arguments in para 2 concerning report of PW2 being valueless is of no help to the accused persons as I have already observed that even if the report is excluded from consideration, still the offence against the accused persons is made out from the bare testimonies of police officials. Argument in para 3 is of no help as report was found by me on the records of the case and it was put to the accused persons in their supplementary statements recorded on 14.07.2008. It does not need mention that the report is admissible under section 292 Cr.PC. At this juncture itself. I deem it pertinent to observe that in the report there is mention about the intactness of seal. I also deem it pertinent to mention that even PW2 had mentioned about the intactness of the seal. It is trite that report of the experts are to be considered as a whole. Thus the version given in the report concerning seals being intact has to be taken as having been proved. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bhagwan Dass Vs. State 1982 Cr.L.J 2138, State of Punjab Vs. Nachater Singh AIR 1965 Orrisa 38 and Rai J.L Vs. Amrit Lal Dey 1980 Cr.LJ 24.
The arguments of Ld. Defence counsel regarding missing of link evidence are not tenable. There is veryvery pertinent reason in the present case due to which the arguments concerning link evidence being missing cannot be allowed. The number of currency notes were noted down by PW SI Randhir Singh and ASI Bhoop Singh in the seizure memos. In the reports the same numbers are there and hence the question of link evidence looses its importance. It is well settled that every case is an island in itself and each case has to be decided on the basis of its peculiar facts and circumstances.
32. In view of my observations above, the arguments in para 4 of the written arguments do not hold water and have to be rejected. The contention concerning delay in obtainment of report is of no help as serial numbers of notes were noted down in the seizure memo. Thus delay was not of any consequence. Moreover, this much of time is usually taken in such cases as it is common knowledge that workload in police stations is too much and does not permit desired expeditious transmission.
33. Arguments in para 5 are also of no help in view of the discussion above particularly the number of notes having been noted down. Similarly arguments in para 6 do not hold any water. Nonexamination of Ct. Banveer is of no help as prosecution has established its case from the testimony of other witnesses. Number of witnesses are not to be counted and it is their testimonies which have to be perused. Arguments concerning there being no public witness is of no help as prosecution has explained the reason of non examination of the public witnesses. It is common knowledge, these days that public persons do not become prepared to become witnesses as they know that they shall have to suffer unnecessarily. Moreover it is not mandatory that public witnesses should be joined in each and every case.
34. Arguments in para 8 concerning nonoffering of search by the I.O is of no help as it has not been shown as to what prejudice has been caused to the accused by nonoffering of search. The judgment placed reliance upon in this regard are distinguishable on facts and are not pertaining to a case of IPC and pertain to cases under NDPS Act as in the cases under NDPSAct, it is very easy to plant contraband on the accused. This is not so in case of currency notes.
35. Arguments concerning FIR number being there on the recovery memo is of no help as in the present case prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading satisfactory evidence. Moreover, it was not asked from the PWs as to why the FIR number was in the same ink. Another reason to disallow the argument is that rukka constable had come to the spot along with the FIR and the FIR number might have been written after arrival of the rukka constable. Possibility of the I.O knowing the case FIR number in advance cannot also be ruled out as he might have ascertained about the FIR number from the duty officer. Non asking from PWs in this regard goes against the accused. Even otherwise assuming for the sake of argument that it was so done as put forth, still this fact in itself does not entitle the accused persons to any benefit in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The argument with respect to Ex.PW3/A also meets the same fact as this can be said to be a non material contradiction not going to the root of case of the prosecution. Similarly arguments at serial No.11, 12, 13 and 14 are not tenable as the same can be said to be minor discrepancies, which are bound to creep in a true case. The arguments in para 14 that mere possession does not amount to commission of any offence is not tenable as in 1979 (4 SCC 723) titled as M. Mammuti Vs. State of Karnataka, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: " it is not correct to say that once appellant is found in possession of counterfeit notes, he must be presumed to know that the notes are counterfeit. If, notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit such a presumption could reasonably be drawn".
36. The above mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly indicative of the fact that it is the nature of the notes, which is material. In the present case nature of the notes was such which would convince anybody at a mere look that the notes were fake and for this reason I have drawn the presumption as per the mandate of the above mentioned judgment. Reliance of Ld. Defence counsel on (AIR 2001 SC 3074) is of no help as in that case the notes were recovered from a student and the number of notes was not much (only 13) whereas in the present case number of notes is quite huge, which leads to the only conclusion that the accused persons were having the requisite mensrea. It was also proved on record in that case that fakeness of notes was not discernible in the absence of detailed scientific systematic examination even to an expert. for this reason mensrea was not attributed. In this regard, I may also to refer judgment in Satya Narain AIR 1961 AP 213, in which, in case of possession of 30 notes, presumption regarding mensrea was drawn. The present case stands at a far far better footing as far as drawing of presumption of mensrea is concerned as in the present case accused persons were found in possession of 129 & 169 notes. The other judgments placed reliance upon by ld. Defence counsel are not of any help to the accused persons as in view of above going reasons I have no hesitation to hold the accused persons guilty for an offence punishable under section 489C IPC.
37. The arguments concerning link evidence being not appropriate particularly based on Ex.PW3/A are of no help as careful perusal of the records has revealed that seals were there on the parcels as per the version put forth by the prosecution in its report under section 173 Cr.PC. PW4 has categorically testified in his evidence that on 2 parcels, seal of RS was there and on one parcel seal of BS was there. This is so mentioned in Ex.PW3/A. PW4 has clarified that it is usual practice to mention the name of the I.O in the register, Ex.PW3/A is part of which, and I have no hesitation in accepting this version. Moreover on the next page, name of I.O SI Bhoop Singh is there, on Ex.PW3/A. Arguments concerning non obtainment of signature of receiving officers does not amount to a serious lapse in the circumstances of the case as I have already observed that bare testimonies of police officials who have testified about fakeness of the currency notes on a bare look is sufficient to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. I found that treasury officer and concerned officer from security press Nasik have observed about intactness of the seals. The currency notes were sent to the court duly sealed with the seal of CNP and I could not find from the records of the case that link evidence is missing in this case.
38. In Bhagwan Dass Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1982 Crl. Law Journal 2138, State of Punjab Vs. Nachhater Singh AIR 1965 Orrisa 38 and Rai J.L. Vs. Amrit Lal Dey 1980 Crl. Law Journal 24, it has been held that it is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine any or every person from the office of expert with respect to safe custody of the sample therein and its failure to do so does not introduce any infirmity in its case. Section 293 renders the entire report admissible including the averments with regard to the condition of samples and the seals therein and the manner of their receipt. In AIR 1965 Orissa 38, AIR 1955 HP 15 and AIR 1934 Allahbad 873, it has been held that there is no need to call the expert. The present case being under section 292, it stands on a better footing than section 293.
39. Coming to section 489D, I am of the considered view that evidence collected by the prosecution with respect to this offence is not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal law, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to establish all the ingredients required under the section. Ingredients of section 489 require that accused made or performed some part of the process of making of fake currency notes. Entire evidence has been read by me carefully and there is no evidence by virtue of which it could be said that printer was used by the accused persons in the process of making of counterfeit notes. No witness has stated as to how the printer was used by the accused persons in making of currency notes. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to observe that recovery of printer does not establish a firm link with the preparation of the forged currency notes. Therefore, I have no hitch in acquitting the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 489D IPC. I deem it pertinent to mention that non existence of evidence on record constrained Ld. PP to concede that prosecution has failed to establish its case under section 489D IPC and I am of the considered view that he was right in doing so. Keeping in view of the above going discussion accused persons are held guilty for the offence punishable under section 489C. Accordingly let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court (Sh. Dilbagh Singh)
nd
On this 22 day of August, 2008. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DILBAGH SINGH PUNIA: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 355/06 State Vs. 1. Raj Kumar @ Sunil S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, R/o B1/192, Gali No.10, Vikas Vihar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Kasim S/o Nasim, Kasba Kerana, PS Kerana, District Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. FIR No. 285/04 PS Vivek Vihar U/s 489C/489D IPC.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :
1. Advocates for convicts have been heard on the point of sentence. They have requested for taking lenient view on the grounds that convicts have faced the ordeal of long trial. Convict Raj Kumar and his Counsel have submitted that it is the first offence of the convict. That convict Raj Kumar is 25 years of age and is in JC since arrest. That he has six brothers and four sisters and he is youngest of them. That earlier he used to do Kiryana business and deal in mobile phones. A request for taking lenient view has been made.
2. Convict Kasim and his Counsel have submitted that he is 35 years of age and has two brothers and four sisters. That he himself has married and has four children to support.
3. Convicts and their Counsels have submitted that conduct of convicts during trial had been good and they intend to reform themselves.
4. I have carefully perused the records of the case and considered the submissions. While sentencing, court has to balance the conflicting interest of the society on the one hand and that of the convict on the other hand. All the precedents contain this basic principle and for this reason I am not referring the precedents for the sake of brevity. The convicts in the present case were found in possession of fake currency notes. The number of currency notes which were found in possession (125+169+12+19), were substantial as mentioned in my judgment of the separate date. The menace of fake currency notes is affecting the society at large. There can be no two views that the offence is very serious.
It is an offence not only against the economy of the State but is also an offence against the sovereignty and integrity of the State. This fact is an aggravating circumstance against the convicts. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the convicts and convicts before me can be said to be the mitigating circumstances to some extent.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient to sentence the convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3½ years (42 months) each and a fine of Rs 2,000/ each under Section 489 (C) IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 months each. Convicts shall get benefit of set of as contemplated under Section 428 Cr.P.C of the period during which they have remained in judicial custody in this case at Central Jail Tihar. Reader shall report in the warrant about this period.
6. One of the convicts namely Kasim is reported to have been convicted in a case under Section 489(C) IPC and is undergoing sentence at District Jail, Karnal. His appeal is also dismissed by Punjab & Haryana High Court as per intimation received from Jail Superintendent, Karnal, vide letter No.11994 dated 21.8.2008. Convict Kasim has submitted before me by way of an application that he be permitted to serve his sentence at Karnal Jail first and after undergoing the sentence at Karnal, he be brought to Delhi Jail for undergoing the sentence of this case. The reason given by him is that his parents are also lodged in Karnal Jail at present. This request, in my view, can be allowed for the reason that accused was convicted long back by the Ld. Sessions Court at Karnal. Therefore, request of convict is allowed and it is ordered that convict shall undergo the sentence in this case after undergoing the sentence at Karnal Jail. Suprintendent Tihar Jail and Karnal Jail to do the required acts in this regard under intimation to this court.
7. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convicts free of cost. An copy of order on sentence be also sent to the Superintendent Karnal Jail regarding convict Kasim.
Announced in the Open Court (Sh. Dilbagh Singh)
th
On this 25 day of August, 2008. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.