Allahabad High Court
Anurag Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2013
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Criminal Appeal No.1370 of 2008 Anurag Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Connected with Jail Appeal No.7956 of 2009 Pintoo Saini Vs. State of U.P. Connected with Criminal Appeal No.1699 of 2008 Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of U.P. Connected with Criminal Appeal No.1189 of 2008 Mani Kant Vs. State of U.P. Connected with Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2011 Hairey Mathins Vs. State of U.P. ******* Counsel for the appellant : Sri Shailendra Nath Tripathi, Ad. Amicus Curiae. Counsel for the respondent : Sri R.Y. Pandey, A.G.A. and Sri S.A. Murtaza, Brief Holder, for the State. Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
(Delivered by Justice Rakesh Tiwari) We have heard Sri Shailendra Nath Tripathi, Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
Since all the connected appeals emanate from the common judgment and are entwined by same facts and law, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this judgment.
Brief facts culled out from record are that on 26.6.2006 when Station Officer, Sri Ashok Solanki of Police Station-Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar was patrolling with police party, he received an information at about 10.30 a.m. that fake currency notes are being printed in "Ashirvad Advertizing" Shop situated near Surya Guest House, and if immediate action is taken, the persons printing the counterfeit currency notes can be caught red handed in the act. Request by the police party was made to many a persons to be a witness, but no body in the public cooperated. Ultimately, the Station Officer along with his team namely Subodh Saxena-S.I., Ompal Singh- HCP, Ompal Singh- Mukhya Arachhi, Lokesh- Constable, Sanjeev Kumar- Constable, Ram Kumar-Constable, Abid Ali-Constable, Satendra Kumar-Constable, Daya Chand Sharma-Constable and Rajiv Sirohi-Constable after searing each other's person, went to the "Ashirvad Advertising" shop at about 11.00 A.M. On opening the sliding door they in the light illuminating the shop saw the accused persons inside it, who were busy in different process of printing, sorting and bundling of counterfeit notes. The accused persons were arrested by the police and inquiry was made from them.
The person operating the computer revealed his name as Manikant, S/O Ghasiram, R/O Village-Majhaula, P.S.-Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar, the person taking out the printed notes gave his name as Pradeep Sharma, S/O Sri Kashi Ram Sharma, R/O Village-Hasangarh, P.S.-Saidangali, District-J.P. Nagar, whereas the person cutting the notes identified himself as Hairi Mathins, S/O Sri Rosha Mathins, R/O Mohalla-Subhash Nagar, District-Bareilly, whereas the person involved printing the counterfeit notes in the shop told his name as Pintu Saini, S/O Sri Har Kishan Saini, R/O Village-Katai, P.S.-Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar and the last person who was stacking the counterfeit notes in bundle claimed himself to be Anurag Sharma, S/O Sri Keshav Sharan Sharma, R/O Mohalla-Kayasthan, P.S.-Hasanpur, District-J.P. Nagar. It was revealed by the accused persons that about fifty lacs rupees of counterfeit currency notes was to be printed out of which only about Rs.1,78,500/- of notes could be printed when the shop was raided by the police.
The police party recovered fake currency notes of Rs.100 denomination and other material for printing of the counterfeit notes:
"ekSds ls 100&100 uksVksa dh 15 xMMh;k ftuesa lhjht ua0 5 ,u0,l0&592255 ds 489 udyh uksV dqy 48]900 :i;s lhjht ua0 5 ,u0,l0&592525 ds 466 udyh uksV dqy 46600 :i;s o lhjht ua0 5 ,u0,l0&592552 ds 200 udyh uksV dy 20]000 :i;s o lhjht ua0 5 ,u0,l0&592522 ds 300 udyh uksV dqy 30000@& :i;sa o fcuk dfVax ds lhjht esa Nis gq, 1785 udyh uksV dqy 1]78500 :i;s rFkk lknk isij ij lh/kh rjQ ls 81 Nis udyh uksV ftudh iq'r ugh Nih gS rFkk mYVh rjQ ls ¼dk0QVk½ Nis udyh uksV ftuds vxys Hkkx ij dqN ugh ¼dk0QVk½ gS rFkk lkns dkxt ij xkW/kh th izfrek o rkj dh NikbZz ds 160 isij o xkW/kh th izfrek NikbZ ds 200 isij o rkj NikbZ ds 150 isij o lkns dkxt ds 200 isij o ,d fjenLrk lknk dkxt iSfdax esa ekSfuVj dyj xksYM LVkj ,l0,u0 270 Mh0;w0 16353] ¼1½ lh0ih0;w0 bUVsDl 2&0 xhxk gMZl] dh cksMZ IyhvkseSDl lSaelax ¼1½ fizUVj ,p0ih0 ystj dyj 2600¼1½ ,u0 ¼1½ ;w0ih0,l0 ,0ih0lh0 dksEist ch0b0 500 vkb0,u0 ekml ekbdzks 'kkW¶V o yhM rkj rFkk flYoj dyj dh fMCch] Qjek Ldzhu isafVax ukbVªks dSfedy dh IykfLVd dh 'kh'kh dSjksflu vk/kk yhVj vk;y dh cksry dksfVax dk IykfLVd dh ,d fMCch lQsn jax dh QkmaMj] ,d fMCck fcfyfpax ikmMj] ,d cUMy :bZ] Mksjh lwr ykbV dyj dh fMCch LVs ij] jcM dk VdM+k Ldsy yksgk] dVj] ,d MkbdzksesV dh fMCch ,d ehfM;e dSfedy dk fMCck fldatk cjken gq, gS^^ After making recovery memo of counterfeit notes and items for printing they were sealed in presence of witnesses. Copy of recovery memo was also given to each of the accused after it was read over to them. It appears that during police operation, media and press persons also came, but they have also showed their inability to be witness in the case. Subsequently, case crime no. 900 of 2006 was registered under sections 489-Ka, 489-Ga, 489-Gha, 489-Da IPC.
The samples of counterfeit notes recovered from the spot were sent for examination and report to Govt. Printing Press, Devas (M.P.) on 2.9.2006. After the sample of counterfeit currency notes were examined at the Devas printing press at M.P., they were sent back along with report to the Station Officer-Ashok Solanki, P.S.-Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar who vide letter dated 18.9.2006 requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar for further legal action in the matter. On committal, charges were framed against the accused persons in the court of F.T.C./Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, J.P. Nagar in S.T. No.439 of 2006, under sections 489-Ka, 489-Ga, 489-Gha, 489-Da IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution produced five witnesses namely Subodh Kumar Saxena- P.W. 1, Ashok Solanki- P.W. 2, Shailendra Srivastava- P.W.3, Girish Chand-P.W.4 and Baljeet Singh-P.W.5 whereas, the accused persons were also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. who apart from their statement on oath, produced one B.P. Singh-Upkhand Adhikari (Electric), Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar as D.W. 1, in support of their case.
The court below on the basis of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and on appreciation of record, convicted the accused-appellants as above.
These appeals have been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, J.P. Nagar in S.T. No. 434 of 2006 (State Vs. Manikant and others), whereby the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced;
(i) under section 489 (A) IPC to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, with default stipulation;
(ii) under Section 489 (C) IPC to undergo R.I. for seven years with a fine of Rs.7000/-, each with default stipulation;
(iii) under section 489 (D) IPC and to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, each with default stipulation; and
(iv) lastly they have further been convicted under section 489 (E) IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.100/- each with default stipulation.
The contention of counsel for the appellants is that there was no electric supply in the area where "Ashirvad Advertizing" shop is situated near Surya Guest House at the time when it was raided by the police. In this regard he has placed reliance upon statement of D.W.1/B.P. Singh, which shows that electric supply of Electric Sub-Station Gajraula (Naipura) on 26.6.2006 was cut off at 11.00 A.M. His statement further shows that on 26.6.2006 electric supply of the said area was cut off from 05.05 A.M., but the same was started at 12.05 noon. On this basis he has argued that since there was no electric supply, the question of printing counterfeit currency notes by using computers, printers and other electrical appliances, particularly when there was no generator or any other mode of back-up of electricity, does not arise.
It appears from the record that apart from feeder of Sub-Station Gajraula, Naipura, there are 9 other feeders. Counsel for the appellants has not said anywhere that there was no electric from any of 9 other feeders, hence it cannot be said that at the relevant time when police raided the shop, there was no electric supply at 11.00 A.M. on 26.6.2006.
Regarding question of independent witnesses not produced by the police is concerned, from the record we find that the police party had requested independent persons to be a witness but no one came forward. Normally a person of public did not come forward to be a witness in a case due to fear of police, lengthy and torturous procedure of proceedings. Some-times they do not come forward as the threatening are given being criminals who are prepared to go to any extreme. The accused persons in this case appear to be a gang of persons involved in printing of counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, it is probable that no independent person would like to be a witness in the case. It has also come on record that even after the electric supply was cut off the electrical appliances were found working and light source was there. On opening the doors the police had found the electric bulbs lighted. The appellant claimed to have been arrested from different places and not from the shop 'Ashirvad Advertising' where it is alleged that they were printing fake notes.
Accused-Manikant claimed that he was arrested by the police from railway station, accused-Pintu Saini claimed that he was called by the police for inquiry three days before the incident, Anurag Sharma said that he was arrested from Rampur District, Pradeep Sharma stated to have been arrested when he had gone to lodge a report of theft at the police station and Hairi Mathins claimed to have been arrested from Gajraula.
We find from record that all the accused arrested by the police from the place of incident are those who have deep knowledge of computer and printing along with accessories like silver thread and statue of Mahatma Gandhi to print counterfeit currency resembling real currency so that it could be easily passed off. Moreover, some fully printed and some half printed counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused persons in the shop in question, therefore, contention of counsel for the appellants that owner of the shop who had rented the shop had not been arrested by the police does not hold to reason as a person who has taken a shop on rent will not inform the landlord whether any illegal activity in the shop is being carried out by him or not? In any case it is not the case of any of the accused that landlord was involved in the illegal activity of printing of counterfeit notes.
From perusal of original record, it appears that counterfeit currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused persons did not match with real currency notes and also as per report of Govt. Printing Press, Devas (M.P.). The report of the Govt. Printing Press which prints currency notes for Government of India shows that the notes recovered from the possession of the accused-persons, were in fact counterfeit notes. In this regard we would like to reproduce this report for appreciation of facts, which reads thus:
lafnX/k cSad uksVksa ds ijh{k.k dh fjiksVZ Report on Examination of Suspected Bank Nates bl fdLe ds vlyh uksV ds uewus ls rqyuk djrs gq, ifj{k.k fd;k x;k Examined by comparing with a genuine specimen note of this variety:
ewY; oxZ uksVksa dh la[;k
Denomination 100/- No. of Notes. 1182
alongwith 686 printed sheets and other material)
iwoZ yXud ,oa dzekad
Prefixes & Numbers As per list enclosed.
izs"kd
Received from: Chief Judl. Magistrate, J.P. Nagar
lanfFkZr i= la-
Reference letter No. Nil dt. 1.9.06
vijk/k dz- iqfyl LVs'ku
Crime No. 900/06 Police Station: Gajrola
1 uksV dk dV lkbt yEckbZ
Cut size of the Nates Length
pkSM+kbZ Approx. same as per genuine note
Width
2- eqfnzr vfHkdYi dk vkdkj yEckbZ
Size of printed design Length
pkSM+kbZ Not same as per genuine note
Width
3- dkxt/paper:
(i) eq[; ty fpUg
Main watermark: Imitated
(ii) vU; ty fpUg
Other Watermarks: Absent
(iii) lqj{kk /kkxk
Security Thread: Initated
(iv) dkxt dh eksVkbZ
Paper Thickness: Not as per genuine note
(v) lajpuk
Texture:
4- eqfnzr jax
Printing Colours:
5- jftLVªs'ku
Registration Not as per genuine note but faulty
6- lka[;kadu
Numbering
7- eqnz.k dksfV
Quality of Printing
8- fu"d"kZ
Conclusion
Refered material was received in a sealed condition by hand through Shri Phoolwari singh C-281 P.S. Gajrola and is being sent herewith in in a sealed condition through the same person.
1. As the notes as counterfeit notes.
2. Impressions on the sheets of Rs. 100/- deno are counterfeit empression
3. Blank paper is the part of material to be used for counterfeiting.
tkylkth bl :i esa oxhZd`r dh tk ldrh gS fd This forgery is classified here as:
R.N. Gawhaya jlk;uK Js.kh II/rduhdh vf/kdkjh ¼jktif=r vf/kdkjh½ L;kgh dkj[kkuk ¼uewuk lhy½ cSad uksV eqnz.ky;
(SPECIMEN SEAL) nsokl&455003 ¼e-iz-½ Chemist G II/Tecj. Officer (Gazetted Officer) Ink Factory Bank Note Press Dewas-455003 (M.P.) Hkkjr ljdkj cSad uksV eqnz.kky;] nsokl&455003 ¼e-iz-½ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Bank Note Press, Dewas-455003 (M.P.) Forwarded in original to Chief Judl. Magistrate Jotiba Phule Nagar
with reference to his letter cited on page one of the report. The 1182 forged notes of Rs. 100/- denomination alongwith 686 printed sheets & other material) returned herewith may please be acknowledged.
Sd. Illegible d`rs egkizca/kd cSad uksV eqnz.kky;] nsokl ¼e-iz-½ For General Manager Bank Note Press, DEWAS (M.P.) izfrfyfi lwpukFkZ vxzsf"kr% Copy forwarded for inforamtion to:
(1) djsalh vf/kdkjh] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad] fuxZe foHkkx ------------------------------------------------------
The Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Issue Department .......................
2- mi funs'kd ¼v-v-½ jk"Vh; vijk/k vfHkys[k C;wjks] bZLV Cykd ua- 7 vj-ds- iqje] ubZ fnYyh The Deputy Director (CR) N.C.R.B., East Block No. 7, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI Sd. Illegible d`rs egkizca/kd cSad uksV eqnz.kky;] nsokl ¼e-iz-½ For General Manager Bank Note Press, DEWAS (M.P.) In its report that Chemist Gr II the Technical Officer Ink Factory has opined that printed notes seized by the police sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar for examination can be classified as counterfeit notes on the basis that the samples sent for determination are approximate cut size as per genuine note, Main water mark, and security thread has been initiated as in genuine note though water mark was absent and paper thickness was not as that of genuine note, the experts have opened that notes in question are "counterfeit" as they fulfil all the ingredients of counterfeit in Section 28 IPC and therefore case of counterfeiting against the accused is established.
Let us now consider what is counterfeit and its ingredients? Section 28 of I.P. C in this regard reads thus:
"S. 28. A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised."
An analysis of the section has been made by the Apex Court speaking through his Lordship Wonchoo J. in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment rendered in State of U.P. Vs. H.M. Ismail, AIR 1960 SC 669. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are as under:
(5) The main ingredients of counterfeiting as laid down in S. 28 are (i) causing one thing to resemble another thing, and (ii) intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or (iii) knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised. Thus if one thing is made to resemble another thing and the intention is that by such resemblance deception would be practised or even if there is no intention but it is known to be likely that the resemblance is such that deception will thereby be practised there is counterfeiting. Then comes Explanation 1 to S. 28 which lays down that it is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact. Ordinarily counterfeiting implies the idea of an exact imitation; but for the purpose of the Indian Penal Code there can be counterfeiting even though the imitation is not exact and there are differences in detail between the original and the imitation so long as the resemblances is so close that deception may thereby be practised. Then comes the second Explanation which lays down that where the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the person causing one thing to resemble another thing was intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised. This Explanation lays down a rebuttable presumption where the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby. In such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless the contrary is proved.
(6) This analysis of S. 28 shows that there is no necessity of importing words like 'colourable imitation' therein. In order to apply it, what the Court has to see is whether one thing is made to resemble another thing, and if that is so and if the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived by it there will be a presumption of the necessary intention of knowledge to make the thing counterfeit, unless the contrary is proved. What the court therefore has to see is whether one thing has been made to resemble another thing. If it finds that in fact one thing has been made to resemble another it has further to decide whether the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived. If it comes to the conclusion that the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived by it, it can presume the necessary intention or knowledge (until the contrary is proved) and counterfeiting would then be complete. Therefore the two things that were necessary to decide in this case were (i) whether the labels or wrappers on the soaps sold by the respondents were made to resemble the labels and wrappers of the genuines Sunlight and Life-buoy soaps, and (ii) if they were so made to resemble, whether resemblance was such as might deceive a person. If both these things were found the labels and wrappers in this case would be counterfeit and the necessary intention or knowledge would be presumed unless the contrary was proved."
It is not the requirement of Section 28 for the purpose of its applicability that 'counterfeit' should be exact resemblance of the original or genuine and it would be sufficient if the 'counterfeit' can be passed off as genuine or real, by causing deception.
The explanation to S. 28 lays a presumption of law for pre-conditions for this presumption which are (a) the delinquent must cause one thing to resemble another (b) the resemblance is such that any person may be deceived thereby, then there would come up a statutory legal presumption that the delinquent, the author of the resemblance intended to practise deception or that he knew that by such resemblance deception would be practised.
Therefore in the instant case a "counterfeit note" would mean a bank note which has very near resemblance with "bank notes" printed under the authority of the Central Government in Bank Note Press at Dewas (M.P.), and is sufficient to deceive a person in passing it off as a real bank note i.e. when "counterfeit" currency note is so printed as to by a mere look it would convince anyone that it is real or genuine then it would fall within the ambit of section 28 IPC if used with knowledge and intention of passing off as real bank note. The accused has been put to question under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the knowledge at the notes printed being counterfeit, therefore, their conviction under section 489-A, 489-Ka, 489-Ga, 489-Gha, 489-Da IPC can be made if proved. We have called for the said 'counterfeit notes' printed by the accused and find that on first glance and touch of paper a man of prudence would not be able to tell the difference as to whether it is a counterfeit or a real bank note until and unless the person checks it very minutely and then too it may be "passed off" as real one. All the counterfeit notes recovered in this case during the process of printing of same serial number/series. Therefore, presumption would be that until contrary is proved, that the person causing a thing to resemble another, intended by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be practised as has been held in Abdul Savan v. Jitendra Nath Dutta, AIR 1931 Cal 445.
In State of Madras v. Vaidyanatha, AIR 1958 SC 61 (65), their Lordships have explained the expression used in explanation II of Section 28 "shall presume" thus:
" Section. 4 Evidence Act has no role to play. Hence, whenever it is provided that the Court "shall presume" a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved. The words "shall presume" and "may presume" mean in respect of the former "legal presumption" and in the latter "factual presumption". Whenever the legislature uses the word "shall presume" it shall regard the matter as proved unless and until it is disproved. In respect of legal presumption Court is bound to raise the presumption; when in respect of factual presumption it is discretionary."
The ratio decided in the case of State of Madras (supra) was followed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision rendered in R.K. Mullick Vs. State of W.B., (1975) 2 Cal LJ 154 (165) and Shyam Sundar Dharanidhar Padhi, (1971) 1 Cut WR 784 which reads thus:
"Presumptions of law differ from presumption of fact in the following respects: (1) Presumptions of law derive their force from law, while presumptions of fact derive their force from logic. And though many of the former have intrinsic logical weight, being indeed derived from the latter, yet there are others which have none. Although Explanation to S. 28 is not a rule enacted by the Evidence Act it is submitted in view of the general principles that the presumption here is a legal presumption, the Court is bound to raise if the conditions for the drawal of the presumption exist and secondly, the presumption is rebuttable."
We would now examine the provisions of Section 489-A, 489-C, 489-D and 489-E of I.P.C. For ready reference these sections under which accused have been charged are quoted below:
"489-A. Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes.-Whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of 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.
489-C. 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.
489-D. Making or possessing instruments or materials for forging or counterfeiting currency-notes or bank-notes.- Whoever 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.
489-E. Making or using documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes.- (1) Whoever makes, or causes to be made, or uses for any purpose whatsoever, or delivers to any person, any document purporting to be, or in any way resembling, or so nearly resembling as to be calculated to deceive, any currency-note or bank-note shall be punished with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.
(2) If any person, whose name appears on a document the making of which is an offence under sub-section (1), refuses, without lawful excuse, to disclose to a police-officer on being so required the name and address of the person by whom it was printed or otherwise made, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
(3) Where the name of any person appears on any document in respect of which any person is charged with an offence under sub-section (1) or on any other document used or distributed in connection with that document it may, until the contrary is proved, be presumed that that person caused the document to be made."
The crux of Section 489-A, 489-C, 489-D and 489-E, is to prevent the counterfeiting of currency notes or bank-notes. For the purpose of application of aforesaid sections, the following ingredients are necessarily required and are to be strictly interpreted:
(i) to perform any part of process of counterfeiting of currency notes or bank-notes;
(ii) possession of any forged or counterfeit currency- note or bank-note;
(iii) knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit;
(iv) performing or intending with intention to use any part of the process of making, buying, selling or dispossessing any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used for forging or counterfeiting any currency-note or bank-note, would be liable for punishment under the aforesaid Act.
The provisions of said sections have been framed in a very strict manner for the reason that fake currency note not only destroy the economy of a country, but is also considered a hazard all over the world. 'Counterfeiting' currency is a serious problem which is not only being faced by the Governments of India, but by the Governments across the globe. Printing of fake currency note is serious crime having challenging effect on the economy of the country and relation with foreign countries in trade, business and also daily life of people. An innocent person may have currency notes issued to him by the bank yet he may be caught for passing of the same as counterfeit without knowing that he is using such currency note in any transaction. However, in the present facts and circumstances, we find that the appellants had been caught red handed printing note of Rs.100 denomination in various stages i.e., some fully printed, some half printed notes with material to impart water mark and merely because no independent witness had come forward to testify the recovery, it cannot be said that statement of police witnesses who have caught the accused persons is to be discarded. Moreover, we find that in the instant case, the prosecution has proved the case beyond doubt against the accused persons. The accused persons should not be given any advantage of any small irregularity in investigation or procedure to be released for distinguishing the economy of the country by printing fake notes.
We have also seen as stated earlier the lower court record and counterfeit notes which the accused persons were found printing in "Ashirvad Advertizing" Shop situated near Surya Guest House. We have also seen the material used in the printing by these persons and are of the view that print on the fake notes is such i.e. it can be passed off conveniently. At the first instance no person would think twice of printing these notes. It may be noted that after detailed and thorough examination, the notes were detected as fake currency notes. In this regard it is pertinent to note that report of Government of India, Bank Note Press, Dewas-455003 (M.P.) shows that fake currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused persons did not match with real currency notes. The said report further shows that the notes seized from the possession of the accused persons while they were printing had some large counter foil notes.
Regarding thickness of papers, we have checked the papers and genuine bank-notes and find that by their touch there is very slight difference between the fake currency notes and real notes.
The contention of counsel for the appellant that there was no independent witness is concerned, suffice it to say that members of public do not normally come forward to be a witness in any incident in which the police is involved due to torturous procedure of proceedings. Therefore, it is probable that no independent person would like to be a witness in the case. In this regard, it is relevant to note here that request by the police party was made to many a person to be a witness, but no body in the public cooperated the police.
On opening the shop in question, the police party had found the shop lighted by electric bulbs and work of printing going on, therefore, contention of counsel for the appellants that there was no light in the area where "Ashirvad Advertizing" Shop is situated is not believable. His contention is also not believable for the reason that area where "Ashirvad Advertizing" Shop is situated is feeded by so many feeders as proved by Daily Log Sheet 33-11/KV, Sub-Station Industrial Estate, Gajraula. The said Daily Log Sheet also shows that except in feeder no. 3, electricity was being supplied by all other feeders. In his cross-examination, D.W.1- B.P. Singh, Upkhand Adhikari (Electric) Gajraula, District-J.P. Nagar stated that on 26.6.2006 electric supply of Electric Sub-Station, Gajraula (Naipura) was disconnected at 11.00 A.M.. He has further stated that on 26.6.2006 electric supply of aforesaid area was stopped at 05.05 A.M. but was started at 12.05 noon.
Thus, from combined reading of Daily Log Sheet submitted by D.W. 1- Sri B.P. Singh and his report dated 06.11.2007, aforesaid, show that the shop in question where fake currency notes were printed was being supplied electric by other feeder. It is apparent from the record that area was being feeded by 8 feeders out of total 9 feeders, therefore, contention of counsel for the appellant that merely because one feeder was not available, there was no electric supply, cannot be believed, particularly when the recovery of fake notes has been made by the police.
In view of the above discussion, we find that the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused persons who have been found guilty of printing fake currency notes in "Ashirvad Advertizing" Shop situated near Surya Guest House. They have rightly been convicted under the offence punishable under Sections 489 (A), 489 (C), 489 (D) and 489 (E) of I.P.C.
For the reasons stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we affirm the view taken by the court below in the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence by the court below is upheld. In result, all the appeals stand dismissed.
Sri Shailendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae, would get Rs.2,100/- for his services rendered to the Court and it should be paid to him within a month.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for immediate compliance, which should be reported to this Court in four weeks.
Dated: 04.03.2013 RCT/-