Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Surender Mandal S/O Nandu Mandal on 4 August, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. P. GARG
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 131/06
State Versus (1) Surender Mandal s/o Nandu Mandal
R/o Patri Gate No.4,
Palika Bazarm Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
(2) Jitin s/o Sunil Kumar
R/o Patri Gate No.4,
Palika Bazarm Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 100/06
U/s. 489C/489E IPC
PS Tuglak Road
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Surender Mandal and Jitin were arrested by the police of PS Tuglak Road vide FIR No. 100/06 and were challaned to the court for trial for the commission of the offences punishable U/s 489C/489E IPC on the allegations that on 28.5.06 at about 11.30 pm at the backside of Vigyan Bhawan Lawns, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention were found in possession of a forged currency note of Rs. 50/- which they retained knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged and intended to used that as genuine. It is further alleged the said currency note was handed over to complainant Jayanti while purchasing 'Chana' for Rs. 5/-. On checking currency note of 50/- rupee, it was found fake.
2. During investigation both the accused persons were arrested in 2 this case. The forged currency note of Rs. 50/- was seized. The currency note was sent to Nasik to seeks opinion. IO recorded statements of the concerned witnesses at different stages of the investigation and after completion of the investigation filed challan against the accused persons in the court of ld MM.
3. After complying with the provisions of section 207/208 CrPC, the ld MM committed the case to the court of sessions.
4. After hearing ld Addl PP for the state and ld defence counsel for the accused persons, charge U/s 489C/489E/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case prosecution has examined PW1 Ct Subhash, PW2 HC Gurdas Singh,PW3 HC Hoshiyar Singh, PW4 ASI Sodan Singh and PW5 ASI Mohd Kalim. Prosecution failed to produce PW Jayanti. So further evidence of the prosecution was ordered to be closed.
6. Statements of accused were recorded under section 313 CrPC . The accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offence. Their plea is that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. I have heard the ld. Addl PP for the state and ld defence counsels for the accused persons and have gone through the file. On perusal of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, I am of this view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Material 3 prosecution witness complainant Jayanti has not appeared in the witness box. Process issued was to him time and again but the same was received back unexecuted. The complainant was ordered to be summoned through IO but he failed to serve the witness and in his testimony before the court, expressed his inability to serve him.
8. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witnesses and their testimony is not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence.
9. More-over there is nothing on record to show if any of the accused persons was found in possession of forged currency note of Rs 50/- knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit one. Both the accused persons were illiterate and laymen and were not aware it to be a forged currency note. It is also not clear as to which of the accused person was found found in possession of the note and who handed over the same to the complainant. The accused persons were not found in possession of any other forged notes though they were arrested soon after the incident. It shows that the accused persons were not having any intention to keep in possession of the forged currency note. No independent public witness was joined at the time of investigation at any stage.
10. Adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for not examining material witness ie complainant Jayanti.
11. In view of above discussion, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable 4 doubt. Benefit of doubt is given to them and they are acquitted in this case.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Additional Sessions Judge court on 4.8.07 Patiala House New Delhi