Delhi District Court
State vs Anuradha Etc. on 14 January, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
State Versus Anuradha etc.
Sessions Case No. 21/2007
FIR No. 90/2002
Under Section 489 C IPC
PS Vivek Vihar
1. Anuradha W/o Niranjan Singh
R/o 5-B/52, NIT Faridabad, Haryana
2. Razia Begum W/o Sayed Parkash
R/o 85-D, Village Khirjabad,
New Friends Colony, New Delhi
Date of Institution of Case : 14.12.2004
Date on which judgment Reserved : 07.1.2008
Date on which judgment delivered : 11.1.2008
JUDGMENT :
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.4.2002 at about 5.30 PM at ITI turn Vivek Vihar Delhi, both the accused persons namely Anuradha and Razia Begum were apprehended by the police officials on secret information. Accused Anuradha was found in possession of 90 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination bearing Sl. No. 5DG 608504 to 5DG 608514. Similarly, accused Razia was also found in possession of 180 fake currency notes (in two packets of 90 notes each) of similar denomination bearing sl. No. 5DG 608509 to 5DG 608521. The said fake currency notes were seized and both the accused were arrested.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against both the said accused for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC . 1
3. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions and after considering the material on record, charge was framed against both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC dated 12.1.05 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations and the charge, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all at the trial. PW2 WHC Suman was one of the recovery witness and she had taken search of both the accused. She proved the personal search memo of both the accused as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B and the seizure memo of the counterfeit currency notes as Ex. PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. She also proved the disclosure statement of the two accused as Ex PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F and identified the said notes in court.
PW3 Ct. Rishi Pal and PW7 SI Anand Swaroop were the other witnesses of recovery of the counterfeit notes from the possession of the two accused and were the other members of the raiding party. PW7 was also the initial IO of this case. They all deposed the same facts about the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the two accused. PW6 HC Balkishan was the subsequent IO of this case who had prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A after reaching the spot on receiving the investigation and had arrested the two accused vide memo Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. PW1 HC Jagpal Singh was a duty officer who recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B . PW4 HC Diwan Singh was another duty officer who proved the DD entry No. 16A dated 19.4.02 as Ex.PW4/A vide which, the IO, Ct. Suman Rana and Ct. Rishipal had left the PS for patrolling duty. PW5 Shri Ved Parkash, Treasurer, Reserve Bank of India, Delhi had given his opinion on the seized currency notes upon the application of the SHO concerned Ex.PW5/A and the two lists of the notes Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C. He proved his opinion as Ex.PW5/D. PW8 HC 2 Hira Lal was the MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries regarding deposit of case property in the malkhana, in register no. 19 as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B.
5. Statement of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them which they denied and pleaded innocence. Accused Anuradha submitted that the recovery was planted upon her after she was lifted from Coffee Home, Preet Vihar. Similarly, accused Razia also submitted that the recovery was planted upon her after she was lifted from her house. None of the accused led any evidence in their defence despite opportunity given to them.
6. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Shri Majid Ali Khan Advocate for both the accused.
7. It was argued on behalf of the State that it has been clearly proved on record by PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 that both the accused were found in possession of fake currency notes which were subsequently opined to be counterfeit notes by PW5 and therefore, the offence under Section 489C IPC stands proved against them.
8. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the recovery was planted upon both the accused after they were respectively lifted from different places. He further pointed out towards the various contradictions appearing in the testimonies of the three witnesses of recovery.
9. According to Section 489C of the IPC, a person who is found in possession of any counterfeit/forged currency note or bank note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit or forged and with an intention to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, is guilty 3 under the said section.
10. In the instant case, an objection was raised by the Ld. defence counsel that the recovered currency notes from the possession of the two accused were not proved to be forged or counterfeit. Ld. counsel for the accused pointed out at the deposition of PW5 who had given an opinion regarding the said notes to be counterfeit/forged (Ex.PW5/D). He was working as a Treasurer in Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi and thus was an expert on the subject. In his cross examination he admitted that in his report he had mentioned that final opinion shall be obtained from the Currency Note Press, Nasik or Bank Note Press Dewas. It was argued that this fact shows that said witness was not sure about his opinion. It is a matter of record that the seized notes were never sent for any final opinion either to Nasik or Dewas . However, the opinion of the said expert cannot be brushed aside that too when there had been no suggestion either to this witness or to any other witness by the defence that the seized notes were genuine. This shows that the defence also proceeded on the theory that the seized notes were counterfeit notes. Even in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused never took any plea that the said seized notes were genuine. The only defence taken by the accused was that the recovery has been planted upon them.
11. In order to appreciate the defence taken by the accused, various contradictions appearing in the testimonies of the witnesses were pointed out. It was pointed out that as per PW2, she alongwith other members of the raiding party started for patrolling duty from the police station at about 4.45 pm whereas, PW7 the initial IO deposed that they reached the spot at 4.10 pm while patrolling the area. This is a minor difference of time . The time when the raiding party members left the police station has already been deposed and 4 proved by PW4 who proved the DD No. 16A (ExPW4/A) vide which, the members of the raiding party left the police station at 4.10 pm. It is a matter of prudence that while conducting any investigation or raid, no person can be expected to be very precise about time and there may be minor differences regarding the same.
12. Another contradiction pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel was that PW2 deposed that all the members of the raiding party were in civil clothes except one Ct. who was in uniform. PW3 deposed that all were in uniform and PW7 also deposed that all were in uniform. Again there is a minor discrepancy regarding the same. When two witnesses have deposed the same facts, the deposition of the third witness having minor discrepancy can easily be ignored.
13. It was further pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel that PW3 deposed that the accused persons were seen by them from a distance of about 15 paces, however PW7 deposed that they were so seen from a distance of about 50 paces. Again, there cannot be any accuracy regarding the distance which has been deposed by the witnesses by approximation. The possibility of any clerical mistake in recording the said distance of about 15 and 50 meters cannot be ruled out as both the numbers are phonetically similar.
14. The other objection raised by the Ld. defence counsel was that no public person was joined in the investigation though they were available and no serious attempt was raised by the IO in this respect. Ld. counsel referred to the deposition of PW2 who deposed that she was not having any knowledge as to how many public persons were requested by the IO to join the raiding party and further deposed that the IO did not noted down the names and addresses of those persons who refused to join the raiding party. PW3 in this respect 5 deposed that no public person was called by the IO to join the raiding party whereas PW7 deposed that he requested 3 / 4 passers by to join the raiding party but they all refused and went away without giving their names and addresses. Again there is similarity in the deposition of two witnesses regarding the same facts. It is the duty of the IO to call for the public persons to join investigation and he has categorically deposed about it. He has further tendered the explanation of not recording the names and addresses of the persons who refused to join the raiding party by deposing in his cross examination that it was not done so by him to avoid wastage of time. Once a person has refused to become a witness to the raid, it is a futile exercise to record his particulars or start another proceedings against him, if the exigency of the situation requires otherwise. This is without prejudice to the law contained in Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. Similarly, PW6 also did not joined any public person as a witness to the arrest of the accused. The recovery had already been effected when he arrived at the spot and therefore, it was not incumbent upon him to join any witness to the arrest of the accused.
15. It was further pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the accused that as per the prosecution case, the accused were seen coming from the side of railway crossing. PW2 was unable to depose the distance between the spot i.e ITI Gate, Vivek Vihar and the railway crossing. PW3 deposed the said distance to be about half KM and PW6 deposed the same distance to be about 100 paces. Though, there is again discrepancy and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses who deposed about the distance but it may again be observed that all the witnesses have deposed the exact spot where the accused were apprehended and the distance told by them may vary as it was told only by approximation and not by any precision as it was never measured. 6
16. It was further pointed out that PW2 never deposed about the arrival of PW6. However, she has referred PW6 as IO . It was also argued that all the seizure memos etc. were prepared afterwards. It has been observed that in the seizure memo of the notes recovered from accused Anuradha Ex.PW2/C, there is no FIR No. mentioned there upon and on the other seizure memo in respect of accused Razia Begam Ex.PW2/D, the FIR No. appears to be added later on. This only shows and corroborates the prosecution case that the notes were seized and only thereafter the case was got registered. There is no bar for the investigating agency to prepare the seizure memo at the first instance and then put the FIR No. as and when it is made available. It is the first thing which has to be done after any recovery is effected so as to rule out any possibility of manipulation or insertion.
17. It was lastly contended by the Ld. counsel that no identification mark was put on the currency notes so seized from accused and this fact has been deposed by all the witnesses of recovery. Once the notes were seized and sealed at the spot, there was no requirement of putting any further identification mark on them. It may be noted that PW5 who had firstly opened the seal for giving his opinion had deposed that the pullandas containing the said currency notes were having the seal of the IO.
18. Thus it is clear from the above discussion that both the accused were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes. One was having 90 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and another 180. A person carrying such a big amount cannot be said that he or she was unaware that they were fake currency notes. The intention of the accused is imbibed in the possession of such a huge amount of currency notes that they were being possessed with an intention to be used as genuine or at least knowledge that 7 they may be used as genuine.
19. Thus in my opinion, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, both the accused are convicted for the offence punishable under section 489C IPC. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11th day of January, 2008 (SANJAY SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
8 IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY SHARMA : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
State Versus Anuradha etc. Sessions Case No. 21/2007 FIR No. 90/2002 Under Section 489 C IPC PS Vivek Vihar 1. Anuradha W/o Niranjan Singh R/o 5-B/52, NIT Faridabad, Haryana 2. Razia Begum W/o Sayed Parkash R/o 85-D, Village Khirjabad, New Friends Colony, New Delhi ORDER ON THE QUANTUM OF SENTENCE :
The convicts Anuradha and Razia Begum have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC vide judgment dated 11.1.2008 .
2. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Shri Majid Ali Khan - Counsel for both the convicts. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the convicts were found in possession of counterfeit currency notes which they intended to use as genuine. It was further argued by the Ld. APP that the offence proved against the accused is quite a serious one as it affects the economy of the State. He, therefore, prayed that maximum punishment be awarded to him.
3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict presented the mitigating circumstances to the effect that the convicts are old ladies with clean antecedents. It was further submitted that convict Razia Begum is even not in a position to walk properly as she had suffered a fracture in 9 her leg. Hence, it was prayed that leniency be taken while awarding the sentence to the convicts considering the above facts.
4. I have considered the aggravating & mitigating circumstances which are to be weighed perfectly by the court while imposing sentence upon the convict.
5. As per the judgment passed against the convicts, they were found guilty of possessing counterfeit currency notes. Convict Anuradha was having 90 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination while accused Razia Begum was having 180 such notes. They constitute a substantial amount. I agree with the argument of the Ld. APP that the use of counterfeit notes seriously affects the economy of any State and their use is a serious offence. But at the same time, while passing sentence, the court has also to consider the status of the convict, their background and other factors which affect sentencing. Both the convicts are ladies of mature age and belongs to a lower strata of society. No criminal antecedents could be reported against them and it was their first offence. They were found in possession of the counterfeit notes and were not found using them. At the most they can be termed as "carriers". The source from where they brought the notes could not be ascertained by the investigating agency nor the place where such notes were manufactured. Thus, the convicts deserves a lenient view.
6. Accordingly, both convicts are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC and 10 in default of payment of fine they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, each.
Copy of the judgment and Order on sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room . ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14th day of January 2008 (SANJAY SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
11