Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar on 7 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE -05: WEST : DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT-01-006704-2017
Case No. 449/2017
FIR No. 105/2012
PS Rajouri Garden
U/s 489B/489C IPC
STATE
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR
Son of Late Shri Mengha Ram,
R/o House No. M-33, Ground Floor,
Rajouri Garden, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 29.06.2017
Date of Committal : 27.07.2017
Charge framed Under Section : 489B and 489C IPC against the
accused.
Date of conclusion of final arguments
and reserving judgment : 07.05.2024
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment : 07.05.2024
Final Judgment : Accused Raj Kumar is acquitted
of both the Charges framed
against him u/s 489B IPC and
489C IPC.
FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.1 of 26
PS Rajouri Garden
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Raj Kumar has been facing trial of the charge for having possession of 27 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each and for using the same by depositing the said counterfeit currency notes with the complainant Dinesh Sahu, Cashier with IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi.
Facts emerging from the Charge-sheet are as under:
2. On 16.03.2012, SI Abhishek along with Constable Karnail Singh had gone to IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch in connection with investigation of a complaint received from complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahu, Cashier in the above-said Bank detailing the facts that on 16.03.2012 at about 11.30 AM, accused Raj Kumar came to him having duly filled-in deposit slip and 100 currency notes of Rs.1,000/-, for depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account bearing No. 0040104000193306. On checking the said 100 currency notes, 27 notes bearing Nos. 9BL866312, 9BL866207, 9BL873571, 9BL873560, 9BL873541, 9BL873504, 9BL8873502, 5AC471094, 5AC471084, 5AC471083, 5AC471078, 5AC471075, 5AC471073, 5AC471027, 5AC471057, 5AC471038, 5AC471009, 5AC471007, 9BL866384, 9BL866367, 9BL866239, 9BL866236, 9BL866330, 9BL866329, 9BL865994, 9BL866327 and 9BL866317 were FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.2 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden found to be counterfeit currency notes. After taking acknowledgment of the said counterfeit notes from accused Raj Kumar, the said notes were impounded by him. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the knowledge of Ms. Neeta Anand, Branch Head of the said Bank who asked the complainant to affix the seal of the Bank on the said notes and also the signatures of the complainant and further asked him to send a copy of the complaint to PS Rajouri Garden for further necessary action.
3. On the basis of complaint made by complainant Sh.Dinesh Sahu, SI Abhishek Verma got registered the case under Section 489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') IPC and seized all the 27 counterfeit currency notes after preparing a pullanda of the same, sealed with the seal of 'AK'. Thereafter, SI Abhishek prepared the site plan at the pointing out of complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahu and recorded statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr. PC') of Ms. Neeta Anand, Branch Head as also the statement under Section 161 Cr. PC of Constable Karnail Singh. Investigating Officer obtained CCTV footage, original cash deposit slip, account opening form, statement of account of accused and documents regarding presence of complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahu after serving notice under Section 91 Cr. PC upon IDBI Bank.
4. The seized counterfeit currency notes were sent for FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.3 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden examination to Currency Note Press, Nasik from where report was received to the effect that the seized counterfeit currency notes were of high quality counterfeit notes as specified in the 3rd schedule of the UA(P) Act 1967 and its amendment Act 2012. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar was interrogated, who disclosed that the said counterfeit currency notes were given as 'Shagun' by the attendants of marriage of his daughter which was performed by him in February 2012. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he was having complete knowledge of the fact of these notes being counterfeit currency notes despite which he mixed the said counterfeit currency notes with the original currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- and tried to deposit the same in IDBI Bank but the same were detected by complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahu. Thereafter, accused was arrested in the present case. However, since he had obtained anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, he was released.
5. Thereafter, Investigating officer got deposited the questioned and admitted signatures of accused Raj Kumar with FSL, Rohini for examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court.
CHARGE :
6. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
On 05.01.2019, charge for the offences Punishable Under FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.4 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden Section 489-C and 489-B IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.
7. It needs a highlight that while framing the charge against the accused, the date of commission of offence was inadvertently mentioned as '16.03.2017' whereas actually the date of commission of offence was '16.03.2012'. However, it is only a clerical error which was not opposed by the Ld. Defence Counsel during final arguments.
The Trial :
Prosecution Evidence:
8. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in total has examined eight witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh.Dinesh Sahu (complainant/cashier, IDBI Bank), PW-2 Ms. Neeta Anand (AGM, IDBI Bank), PW-3 HC Charan Singh (joined the investigation), PW-4 SI Manoj (joined the investigation), PW-5 Ct. Karnail Singh (joined the investigation), PW-6 SI Deepak (3rd Investigating Officer), PW-7 SI Abhishek Verma (First Investigating Officer) and PW-8 SI Ramesh Kumar (2nd Investigating Officer).
9. Admission/denial under Section 294 Cr.P.C. was conducted, wherein the accused admitted copy of FIR as Ex. P-1, Joint Account Opening Form (4 pages) in respect of account No. 60000040762 maintained with IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden as Ex. P-2 and Result dated 30.8.2016 received from Currency FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.5 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden Note Press, Nasik as Ex. P-3. In view of above-said admission, Ld. Prosecutor dropped concerned bank official of IDBI Bank listed at serial No. 3, Shri Deepak A. Padwal, Dy. Manager in Currency Note Press, Nasik listed at serial No. 4 and W/HC Pavitri listed at serial No. 6 in the list of witnesses.
10. PW-1 Shri Dinesh Sahu, the Complainant/Cashier in IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch has deposed that on 16.03.2012 at about 11:30 AM, accused Raj Kumar visited the branch for depositing cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account having 100 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each. On checking the currency notes, he found 27 Currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each were fake. Thereafter as per the guidelines of the bank, he informed his senior officer i.e. Branch head Nita Anand as well as the police in this regard. He impounded the said fake 27 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each and made endorsement on the deposit slip which is proved as Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, Investigating officer alongwith police staff reached there and he handed over the accused alongwith the deposit slip as well as 27 fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each to him. The witness has proved his statement as Ex.PW-1/B. 10.1. He further deposed that the Investigating officer seized the said currency notes vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW- 1/C after sealing the same with the seal of AB. IO had also inspected the spot and had also seen the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the bank and took the recording of the same FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.6 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden in one CD. The investigating officer got the FIR registered. After completing the proceedings in the bank, IO left the bank alongwith the accused. He has identified the currency notes as Ex.PW-1/P1 (colly.) before the Court. However, he failed to identify the accused due to lapse of time.
11. PW-2 Ms. Neeta Anand has deposed that on 16.03.2012, accused Raj Kumar visited the branch to deposit cash of Rs.1,00,000/- in his account and had gone to Cashier Dinesh Sahu for the said purpose. At about 11:00/11:15 AM, the Cashier Sh.Dinesh Sahu informed her about 27 notes having been found faked out of the total 100 currency notes produced by the accused. The police was informed which reached the Bank. Thereafter, the accused along with 27 counterfeit currency notes were handed over. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Sh.Dinesh Sahu, proved as Ex. PW1/A and seized the counterfeit currency notes vide memo Ex. PW1/C after keeping the same in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of AV. She gave her complaint, proved as Ex.PW2/A to the police, mentioning therein the numbers of counterfeit currency notes. She has also identified the currency notes as Ex.PW-1/P1 (Colly.).
12. PW-3 HC Charan Singh has deposed that on 17.03.2012, he received one sealed parcel having seal of AV from the IO and deposited the same in the malkhana and made the entry of the same at serial no. 4040, proved as Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter on FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.7 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden 28.8.2016, the said parcel was sent through PSI Manoj to Government Press, Nasik vide RC No. 136/21/16, Ex.PW3/B. He has further deposed that later on 03.09.2016, PSI Manoj received the report and the parcel from the Government Press, Nasik which was deposited by him with PW-3. He has further deposited that so long the parcel remained in his custody, the same remained intact and was not tampered with in any manner.
13. PW-4 SI Manoj deposed that on 28.08.2016, he received parcel with the seal of AV from the MHC(M) to deposit the same in Govt.Press, Nasik vide RC No. 136/21/16 and accordingly, he deposited the said parcel at Govt. Press, Nasik on 29.08.2016 and thereafter, he handed over the acknowledgment and receipt of the same to the MHC(M). Later on, he received the result and the parcel from the Press at Nasik which was deposited by him in the malkhana on 03.09.2016. He has further deposed that so long the parcel remained in his custody, the same remained intact and was not tampered with in any manner.
14. PW-5 Const. Karnail Singh has deposed that on 17.03.2012, he alongwith IO/SI Abhishek Verma visited IDBI Bank, where cashier Dinesh Sahu met them and made complaint against the accused for depositing 27 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 1,000/- each in the bank. The said 27 counterfeit currency notes were produced by the cashier before the investigating officer who seized the same vide memo, FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.8 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden proved as Ex.PW1/C after keeping the same in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of AV. The investigating officer made his endorsement over the statement of Dinesh Sahu and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR. After getting the case registered, he handed over copy of the FIR to the investigating officer who prepared the site plan at the instance of Dinesh Sahu, recorded the statement of Ms. Neeta Anand as also the supplementary statement of cashier Dinesh Sahu. He has further deposed that thereafter he along with the investigating officer had gone to the residence of the accused but he was not present at his house and his wife Ms. Kusum Lata met them from whom the investigating officer made inquiries about the whereabouts of accused Raj Kumar. Thereafter, his statement was recorded at the Police Station. He correctly identified the 27 counterfeit currency notes as Ex.PW1/P1 (Colly).
15. PW-6 SI Deepak deposed that on 12.05.2016, he received the case file of the present case for further investigation and on 29.8.2016, he sent SI Manoj to Government Press, Nasik for depositing the parcel of fake currency notes for expert opinion and thereafter, on receiving the report from the said Press, the same was handed over by SI Manoj to him. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar who was on anticipatory bail, was arrested by him vide arrest memo, proved as Ex.PW6/A. He also sent the account opening form Ex.PW6/B of the accused along with FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.9 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden other documents collectively exhibited as Ex. PW6/C running into 7 pages and the deposit slip, proved as Ex.PW1/A to FSL, Rohini. On completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court of learned MM.
16. PW-7 SI Abhishek Verma, the Investigating Officer deposed that on 16.03.2012, in the evening, he received complaint Ex.PW-2/A in the Police Station which was marked to him by the SHO of PS Rajouri Garden. On the next day, he alongwith Ct. Karnail Singh visited the IDBI Bank where complainant Dinesh Sahu met him and he recorded his statement, proved as Ex.PW1/B. The Complainant produced 27 counterfeit currency notes before him which were seized vide memo, proved as Ex. PW1/C after putting the same in a plastic container, sealed with his seal of AV. He made his endorsement, proved as Ex. PW7/A over the statement of Complainant and sent the same through Const. Karnail Singh for registration of the case. After registration of the case and receipt of copy of FIR, he has prepared site plan, proved as Ex.PW7/B at the instance of the Complainant. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ms. Neeta Anand as well as the supplementary statement of Dinesh Sahu. 16.1. Thereafter, he along with the accompanying constable reached the house of the accused but he was not present at his house. Wife of accused met the police officials from whom the whereabouts of accused were inquired by the police officials. On his return to the police station, the case property was FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.10 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden deposited in the malkhana by the investigating officer. He also recorded the statement of Const. Karnail Singh. He served notice under Section 91 Cr.PC, proved as Ex.PW7/C upon the bank for procuring the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the bank as well as for documents etc. Pursuant to his transfer from the police station, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). He has also identified the currency notes as Ex.PW- 1/P1 (Colly.).
17. PW-8 SI Ramesh Kumar has deposed that he received file of this case for further investigation on 12.4.2012 and thereafter, he received one CD and some documents contained in an envelope along with covering letter, proved as Ex.PW2/X1 from IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden and placed the same in the case file. He interrogated the accused and also made inquiry from the Complainant. Thereafter, consequent to his transfer from the police station, he submitted the case file with MHC(R).
18. Thereafter, Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 07.09.2019 on submission of Ld. Prosecutor that all the prosecution witnesses as per the list of witnesses have been examined.
FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.11 of 26
PS Rajouri Garden
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. :
19. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused while recording his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he admitted having his account with IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden but denied all the allegations levelled against him in the present case. The accused has showed his ignorance about the investigation carried out by the police officials. The accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
Arguments addressed by the Ld.Defence Counsel :
20. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case of the prosecution is bristled with material contradictions, embellishments; later improvements;several suspicious and unexplained loose ends have been left by the prosecution creating grave suspicion & doubts with regard to case as projected by the prosecution. He further submitted that the accused is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case in such a manner to pretend that he is one, who has committed the offence.
Arguments addressed by the Ld. Prosecutor :
21. Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State submits that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. The witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution with only minor discrepancies and the report has proved on record that the currency notes handed over by the accused to the complainant FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.12 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden were counterfeited.
Court Observation and analysis :
22. The Court heard the rival submissions advanced by Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the entire material available on record carefully.
23. Before we proceed to discuss the evidence of the present case, it is apposite to refer the provisions of Section 489-B and 489- C. The provisions of Section 489-A to 489-C deal with various economic offences in respect of forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes. The object of the legislature in enacting these provisions is not only to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency notes and banknotes. The provisions of Sections 489-B and 489-C are quoted as under :
"489B. 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.
"489C. 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 FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.13 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden 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".
24. A reading of aforesaid quoted Sections would go to show that to constitute an offence under Section 489B, following essential ingredients are necessary:-
(i) The note in question is a currency note or a bank note;
(ii) It was forged or counterfeited;
(iii) That the accused knew or had reason to believe it to be forged or counterfeited;
(iv) The accused intended to use the same as genuine.
25. Similarly, the ingredients which are required to constitute an offence under Section 489C are as follows:
(i) The note in question is a currency note or bank note;
(ii) Such note was forged or counterfeited;
(iii) The accused knew or had reason to believe the note to be forged;
(iv) The accused was in possession of the currency note or bank note.
26. The accused has been charged for both the Sections i.e. 489B IPC and 489C IPC and first two ingredients of both the sections are common. Therefore, the Court is hereinafter discussing both the ingredients together.
27. The first ingredient to be proved by the Prosecution was that the Note (s) in question were the Currency Notes and the FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.14 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden second ingredient is that those notes were counterfeited. Both the ingredients have been proved by the Prosecution by way of ocular as well as documentary evidence which is explained in detail in succeeding paragraphs.
Ocular Evidence :
28. The complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahu who has been examined as PW-1 has specifically deposed on Oath that on 16.03.2012, while he was performing the duty of Cashier in IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, the accused visited the Bank at about 11:15 AM to deposit cash amount of Rs.1 lakh in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each in his account and handed over the said amount alongwith deposit slip to him. However, on checking the currency notes, 27 of such notes were found to be fake and accordingly, were impounded by him. Thereafter, when police visited the Bank, on complaint made by them, he handed over the said 27 fake currency Notes to the Investigating Officer.
29. The AGM of the Bank at that time Ms.Neeta Anand, who has been examined as PW-2 has also deposed on the same lines of PW-1 Sh.Dinesh Sahu. The currency notes received by the Bank, impounded and thereafter, handed over to the Investigating Officer, have been duly identified by PW-1 and PW-2 as Ex.PW-1/P1 (collectively).
30. The first Investigating officer SI Abhishk Verma examined as FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.15 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden PW-7 has also testified on Oath that when he visited the Bank on complaint, the Cashier of the Bank Mr. Dinesh Sahu met him and his statement was recorded, proved as Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter, the complainant produced 27 fake Currency Notes in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each, which were seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex.PW-1/C. The same were kept in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of AV.
31. The Second Investigating officer SI Deepak examined as PW-6 has deposed that on 29.08.2016, he sent SI Manoj to Currency Notes Press, Nasik Road, Nasik, Maharashtra alongwith parcel of the fake currency notes for depositing the same in order to get Expert opinion/report. The said parcel was received from the Press alongwith the report.
32. PW-4 SI Manoj has deposed that he received a parcel with seal of AV from MHC(M) to be deposited in Govt. Press, Nasik vide RC no. 136/21/16 and accordingly, he deposited the same at the Govt. Press on 29.08.2016 and handed over the acknowledgment and receipt to the MHC(M). Later on, he received the result and parcel from the Govt. Press, Nasik and deposited the same in the malkhana on 03.09.2016. So long as the parcels remained in his custody, it was not tampered in any manner.
Documentary Evidence :
33. The report of Currency Notes Press, Nasik, Maharashtra has FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.16 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden been admitted by the accused and proved as Ex.P.3, wherein it is specifically stated that all the 27 Currency Notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination are 'High Quality Counterfeit Notes'.
34. Hence, in view of the ocular as well as documentary evidence, both the ingredients of Section 489B IPC as well as Section 489C IPC have been fulfilled.
35. Even the third ingredient of both the sections 489B IPC and 489C IPC is similar which is (iii) That the accused knew or had reason to believe it to be forged or counterfeited, hence, the ingredient is jointly dealt for both the sections.
36. In the Judgment titled as Umashankar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Apex Court has held that mens rea is essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution is required to prove mens rea that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit currency note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and in absence of such prove, any conviction under Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable under the law.
37. Even the last ingredients of both the Sections i.e. 489B IPC and 489C IPC that (iv) The accused used as genuine the counterfeit currency notes and or was in possession of the counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, is also dealt jointly as all the ingredients are connected inter-se regarding the knowledge, use and possession of counterfeit currency notes by the accused.
FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.17 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden
38. In order to fulfill the aforesaid ingredients that the accused knew or had reason to believe it to be forged or counterfeited; had possession of counterfeit currency notes and used the same as genuine, the first and foremost requirement is the presence of accused at the spot for commission of the said offences.
39. However, there is major contradiction regarding presence of accused Raj Kumar at the spot at the time of commission of alleged offence and the complainant who is the star witness of the prosecution has deposed that on 16.03.2012 while he was performing his duty as Cashier in IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, accused Raj Kumar came at about 11:30 AM for depositing amount of Rs.1 lakh in the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each but while checking the currency notes, it was found by him that 27 currency notes were fake/counterfeit. Accordingly, he informed the Branch head Ms. Neeta Anand as well as police in this regard. The police came at the spot and the accused was handed over to the police by him alongwith the 27 counterfeit currency notes.
40. Further, during his cross examination by the defence, PW-1 showed his ignorance about the fact as to whether the CCTV camera installed in the bank, was working on the day of incident or not and also as to whether or not, the CCTV footage was seen by the investigating officer. The witness deposed that the deposit slip and the currency notes were seized by the investigating officer on the day of incident itself i.e. 16.3.2012.
FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.18 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden
The witness denied the suggestion about his already having in possession of the counterfeit currency notes and about his falsely stating that the same were brought by the accused and also about accused not visiting the bank on 16.3.2012 for depositing the amount. He denied the suggestion that intentionally he had not mentioned the date of impounding of the currency notes. The Witness denied that he in connivance with Ms. Neeta Anand had concocted a false story to falsely implicate the accused and also denied the suggestion about his not having made any statement to the police on 16.3.2012.
41. The same version has been deposed by PW-2 Ms. Neeta Anand who was the Branch Manager at that time that on 16.03.2012, after she was informed by the Cashier about 27 fake currency notes at about 11:00 /11:15 AM, she informed the police and the local police reached at the branch. Accused Raj Kumar was handed over to the police alongwith 27 fake currency notes. The Investigating officer recorded statement of the Cashier at that time and got the FIR registered.
42. Even during her cross-examination conducted on behalf of Ld. Defence counsel, the PW-2 stated that the witness deposed that she herself had not seen the accused handing over the packet of currency notes to Dinesh Sahu but had made complaint to the police regarding the same. She stated that the police might had recorded her statement on 16.3.2012 but the FIR was recorded on her statement. The police seized the counterfeit currency FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.19 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden notes on the day of incident itself and that she had seen the said currency notes only on 16.3.2012. The witness deposed that CCTV camera of the bank was not working on the day of incident. She could not recollect whether police had asked for CCTV footage or not and that since a considerable period had lapsed, she also could not recollect whether CCTV footage was handed over to the police on 21.4.2012. The Witness stated that though Ex. PW2/X1 was issued from her branch but could not identify the signatures of issuer of the same. She also could not recollect as to whether Ex. PW2/X1 was issued under her instructions. The Witness denied the suggestion that she in connivance with Dinesh Sahu had conspired to falsely implicate the accused or that the accused had not deposited the counterfeit currency notes on 16.3.2012 or that the said notes were already in her possession as also in possession of Dinesh Sahu. All the formalities/procedure were followed as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. The acknowledgment from the accused regarding impounding of the currency notes was not filed as the accused refused to sign the same. The Witness denied the suggestion that no acknowledgment was produced even without the signatures of the accused as no such acknowledgment was prepared.
43. Whereas, the Investigating officer SI Abhishek Verma examined as PW-7 has emphatically deposed on Oath that on 16.03.2012, a complaint Ex.PW-2/A was received in the Police FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.20 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden Station in the evening. The same was marked to him by the SHO and on the next day, i.e. 17.03.2012, he alongwith Ct. Karnail Singh visited IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, where they met the Cashier of the bank Mr. Dinesh Sahu. The statement of the Cashier was recorded who produced 27 fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each denomination, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of complainant, FIR was got registered and investigation was carried out, during which, he alongwith Ct. Karnail reached at the house of accused Raj Kumar at M-33, Rajouri Garden but he was not available at his house at that time. Therefore, they returned to the police station.
44. In his cross-examination, PW-7 admitted that complaint marked to him by the SHO, was received by him in the police station in the evening hours 6.00 PM. The witness reached IDBI Bank at about 12 Noon on 17.3.2012 and seized the counterfeit currency notes at about 2.15/2.30 PM after registration of the FIR.
45. The witness further deposed that he could not recollect if the CCTV cameras were installed in the bank or not however, it is correct that at no point of time, PW 1 and PW2 or other officials of the bank had not told him during investigation that the CCTV cameras installed in the bank, were not working on the day of incident. The official record in regard to entry of currency notes was never produced before him either by PW 1 FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.21 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden or by PW 2 and/or by any other official of the bank.
46. The second Investigating Officer SI Deepak/ PW-6 deposed that on 12.05.2016, the investigation was handed over to him and during the investigation, he called accused Raj Kumar in the police station and interrogated him, however, he was formally arrested since he was on anticipatory bail.
47. Hence, the version of Bank officials is totally in contrast to the Investigating officers as the 1st Investigating Officer did not visit the Bank branch on 16.03.2012, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2 and also did not apprehend the accused Raj Kumar on 16.03.2012 though it was deposed by PW-1 and PW-2 that when police visited the branch, accused was very much present and was handed over to the police. This clearly shows that accused Raj Kumar was not present at the Bank when police reached on 17.03.2012. The said fact is also clear from the testimony of second Investigating Officer that accused was called to the Police Station after four years of the alleged incident for interrogation and was let off after formal arrest since he was already on anticipatory bail.
48. Even the statement made by the Cashier, proved as Ex.PW-1/B, is dated 17.03.2012 at 03:00 PM and the FIR was also registered vide DD no. 26A at 03:20 PM dated 17.03.2012. There is no PCR call filed on record to show that a call was made by the Bank officials on 16.03.2012 soon after the alleged offence. Further, the complaint made to the Police Station FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.22 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden Ex.PW-2/A which is duly typed on the letter head of the Bank stated to have been given by the Bank in the evening hours as deposed by PW-7 i.e. 1st Investigating officer SI Abhishek Verma.
49. Further, the arrest memo proved as Ex.PW-6/A and bail bonds furnished by the accused pursuant to anticipatory bail granted to him are dated 05.05.2017 i.e. after almost five years of the alleged offence and it negates the version of PW-1 and PW-2 totally regarding presence of accused when police reached the Bank and his handing over to the police.
50. The CCTV Footage of the alleged crime has never come on record despite notice being given to the Bank by the police and it has been stated simply by the bank officials that the CCTV camera was not working on the day of alleged offence, however no complaint of non functioning of the same by the bank branch to the head office has been furnished on record. This also raise suspicion on their story as put forth by the prosecution.
51. At this stage, reliance is based upon the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Govindaraju -vs- State of Karnataka - (2013) 15 SCC 315, wherein at para- 23, it has been held as under:
"It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.23 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden not be made a ground for rejection of FIR No. 1614/2006 State v Mohd. Latif & Others Page No. 12 of 15 evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
52. These are not minor contradictions which does not go to the root of the matter rather these are most crucial facts on the basis of which the entire case of the prosecution is based. These major contradictions raised serious doubts upon the case putforth by the prosecution as these contradictions cast clouds upon the possession and use of the counterfeit currency notes by the accused.
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs Sidarai Laxman Chougala reported in AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3871, has observed as under :
9. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.24 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. The fact that a defence may not have been taken by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
If there are materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything. In Sunil Kundu Vs. State of Jharkhan, (2013) 4 SCC 422, this Court observed:
"28...When the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not been able to probabilise their defence. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
Conclusion/findings :
54. In view of the abovesaid discussion and the Law cited above, as in a criminal trial the onus is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused before the Court beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and in the present matter serious doubts have been casted upon the story of the prosecution as already discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs.
55. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt with respect to the charge framed against accused Raj Kumar beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Raj Kumar is acquitted of the charge FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.25 of 26 PS Rajouri Garden against him under section 489B IPC and Section 489C IPC in present FIR bearing no. 105/2012, PS Rajouri Garden.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON: 07.05.2024 (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON) ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains 26 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON)
ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi
07.05.2024
FIR No. 105/2012 Page no.26 of 26
PS Rajouri Garden