Delhi District Court
State vs . Sukhvinder Singh Judgement Dt. ... on 13 May, 2019
State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05
(NORTH) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLNT010062552016
SC No. 59023/2016
FIR No. 86/2014
PS Adarsh Nagar
State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o H. No. WZ114, Gali No. 35,
Sant Gali, Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
Date of institution before Metropolitan Magistrate : 2.5.2016
Date of institution in Sessions Court : 18.5.2016
Date of arguments : 4.5.2019
Date of judgement : 13.5.2019
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 5.2.2014 at about 10:00 om, complainant Madan Chand (PW1) was sitting in his vegetable shop in Lal Bagh, Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. At about 10:00 pm accused came at his shop and asked the rate of Kathal (jack fruit). Accused purchased half kg of Kathal and gave a currency note of Rs.100/ denomination. Complainant returned Rs.80/ to accused. When complainant saw this note carefully, it appeared to him that it was a fake note. Complainant ran behind the accused and caught him while he was starting his scooty no. DL4SBF5043. When complainant told SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 1 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 him that Rs.100/ note was fake, accused became perplexed and tried to return two 50 rupees currency notes. Complainant raised hue and cry. One Pankaj (PW2) made a call at 100 number. Police reached there and complainant handed over the accused to police. Investigation
2. On 05.02.2014, SI Raju Yadav (PW5) was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at PS Adrash Nagar. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 85B regarding apprehension of a person with fake currency notes at Subzi Mandi, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Near Laxmi Narain Mandir, SI Raju Yadav alongwith Const. Vikas (PW4) went to that place, where they met Madan Chand and Pankaj. Madan Chand and Pankaj produced this accused and a fake currency note in denomination of Rs. 100/. SI Raju Yadav had taken cursory search of the accused and two fake currency notes of Rs. 100/ were recovered from right side pocket of his pant. One note was torn into two pieces. All the recovered fake currency notes were bearing same serial no. JUL 258726. Thereafter, SI Raju Yadav kept all the fake currency notes in white envelop and sealed it with the seal of RY. The envelop was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Seal after use was handed over to Const. Vikas. Thereafter, SI Raju Yadav recorded the statement Ex.PW1/A of Madan Chand and prepared rukka Ex.PW5/X on his statement. The Rukka SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 2 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 was handed over to Const. Vikas for registration of FIR, who went to police station Adarsh Nagar, got the FIR registered and returned to the spot. He handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Raju Yadav. SI Raju Yadav prepared site plan Ex.PW5/A at the instance of complainant Madan Chand. Thereafter, SI Raju Yadav seized the scooter of Sukhwinder Singh bearing no. DL4SBF5043 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C and his person was searched vide memo Ex.PW1/D. In the personal search of accused, cash amount of Rs. 530/, one brown colour purse containing RC of the abovesaid scooter and one Samsung Mobile Phone Black Colour were recovered. SI Raju Yadav recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A of accused. SI Raju Yadav recorded the supplementary statement of Madan Chand and statement of public witness Pankaj. Thereafter, they came to the police station and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused was locked up after medical examination. SI Raju Yadav recorded the statement under Section 161 CrPC of Const. Vikas. On the next day, accused was produced before the court and one day PC remand was obtained. Accused Sukhwinder Singh took the police to Vikas Park, Tilak Nagar for the search of his associate namely Deepak, who had supplied the abovesaid fake currency notes to him as per his disclosure SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 3 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 statement. They searched for his associate Deepak but their efforts went in vain.
On 06.06.15, recovered fake currency notes were sent to currency notes press, Nasik Road, Maharashtra for their examination. On receipt of report Ex.PW5/B from the abovesaid press, SI Raju Yadav placed it on the record. After completion of investigation, SI Raju Yadav prepared the challan and submitted before the court through SHO.
3. Case was committed to Sessions Court by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after compliance of requirements under Section 207 CrPC. Charge
4. After hearing arguments, a charge under Section 489B IPC and 489C IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claim trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In order to prove its case prosecution six witnesses. PW1 Madan Chand is complainant. PW2 Pankaj is a fellow vegetable seller, who corroborated the testimony of complainant. PW3 Ct. Kuldeep recorded DD No. 85B Ex.PW3/A. PW4 ASI Baljit Singh recorded FIR Ex.PW4/B. PW4 Ct. Vikas participated in investigation. PW5 SI Raju Yadav is Investigating Officer. PW6 ASI Banwari Lal is MHC(M).
SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 4 of 13State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 Statement under Section 313 CrPC and defence evidence
6. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of accused was recorded in which accused denied all the allegations. Initially he stated that he wanted to lead evidence in defence but later on he did not examine any witness. Therefore, vide order sheet dated 20.3.2019, I closed the opportunity to lead evidence in defence.
Submissions of the parties and my findings thereon
7. Sh. C. B. Arora, Advocate for accused has assailed the credibility of PW1 Madan Chand. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that as per PW1 Madan Chand, he returned Rs.80/ to accused. However, in personal search of the accused, the said Rs.80/ were not recovered. I find no substance in the submission because PW1 has explained in cross examination that he had taken back Rs.80/ from the accused. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that accused has not mentioned the fact of taking back Rs.80/ in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. I agree with this submission but this is a minor omission and does not dent the prosecution case. It is further argued that police did not recover half kg Kathal from the accused. Ld. Additional Public argues that there was no need for it because it is not the case property. I am of the opinion that seizure of jack fruit would have been a futile exercise because the same would have putrified in a few days. Ld. Defence SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 5 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 Counsel argues that police did not seized the two currency notes of Rs.50/ from the accused, which accused wanted to return to complainant to complacent him. I find that in persons search memo a cash amount of Rs.530/ has been mentioned. Although, no denomination of the said notes has been mentioned but the aforesaid currency notes seem to be part of the said amount. Even if police had not seized the said Rs.80/ or two currency notes of Rs.50/, same does not discredit the trust worthy testimony of PW1, which is duly corroborated by PW2 Pankaj, who is another vegetable seller. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that Investigating Officer did not put any identification mark on the currency notes of Rs.100/, which was handed over by complainant to Investigating Officer. I am of the opinion that there was no need for it.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that as per testimony of PW4 Ct.
Vikas, there was no memo of handing over and taking over of the seal was prepared. Ld. Defence Counsel further argues that Investigating Officer has not even shown the location of complainant and Pankaj in the site plan. It is further argued that Investigating Officer identified the currency notes handed over to him by complainant on the basis of his bend on left side. Though he admitted that he did not mention the said bend in the charge sheet. Further, Investigating Officer did not SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 6 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 prepare a separate seizure memo of Rs.100/ given by accused to complainant. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that Investigating Officer did not cite as witness any of the officials of PCR van. Though, they were present when local police reached at the spot.
9. I have considered these submissions. I am of the opinion that aforesaid points raised by Ld. Defence Counsel are of no value. PW1 and PW2 are reliable witnesses. Although the accused has tried to assail his testimony by taking a stand in his statement under Section 313 CrPC that he had lent Rs.25,000/ to Madan Chand on 14.12.2013 and Madan Chand had promised to pay back money at the rate of Rs.300/ per day. After paying about Rs.6000/, he stopped paying the money and accused visited him many times to recover loan but he did not pay on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, he was falsely implicated in the present case. I have considered this defence of accused. The aforesaid defence was taken for the first time in his statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC. Accused did not put this defence to PW1 Madan Chand in his cross examination. In cross examination of PW2 Pankaj, a suggestion was given that he (i.e. PW2) had taken Rs.15,000/ from one Goldy, who is partner of accused and that PW2 was paying Rs.300/ per day to clear the loan and that he had signed the loan documents. However, the defence taken in SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 7 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 statement under Section 313 CrPC is that PW1 himself had taken the loan from accused. Therefore, these are two different defences and are totally unworthy of credence. Moreover, there is no reason as to why PW4 Ct. Vikas and PW5 SI Raju Yadav would testify against the accused.
10. Ld. Defence Counsel has assailed the prosecution case on the ground that Ct. Amit, who took the currency notes to Nasik Press has not been examined. Therefore, there is missing link in the chain of custody of the currency notes in question. I have considered these submissions. I agree that Ct. Amit, who took the currency notes has not been examined but here I would like to mention the report of currency notes Press Nasik Road. In this report, it is specifically mentioned that one paper envelope with 8 seals was received intact in sealed condition and same was received by hand through Amit Kumar. I may mention here that PW5 SI Raju Yadav has testified that he kept all the fake currency noes in an envelope sealed with the seal of RY and the said envelope seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. PW6 ASI Banwari Lal has testified that on 6.2.104 ASI Raju Yadav deposited the sealed envelope containing the fake currency notes in Malkhana vide entry in registered no.19 Ex.PW6/A. PW6 ASI Banwari Lal has testified that on 6.6.2015 Ct. Amit took the envelope containing the SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 8 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 fake currency notes to Director Press Nasik vide two RC and he made the entry in the register, which is Ex.PW6/A. Thus it shows that the case property, which was seized in an envelope by Investigating Officer at the spot was deposited in Malkahan and it reached Nasik Press in sealed condition. Even if Ct. Amit has not been examined, the integrity of the case property being untempered stands established. Consequently, I do not find substance in any of the points raised by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. I have carefully perused the testimony of PW1 Madan Chand. I reproduced his examination in chief as under :
"I ma vegetable seller. On the 5 th date of a month in the year 2014, I don't remember the month. On that day, at about 10 PM I was selling vegetables on footpath in jhugi area of Azad Pur Mandi. One persons came to my shop for purchasing vegetables and gave me Rs.100/ note for purchasing half kg Kathal (kathal). I checked the note and I found the same is fake currency note of 100 rupee denomination. I went to the said persons, who was starting his scooter. I tried to return the said note of Rs.100 to him. The said person tried to gave me note of Rs.50/ denomination. At the same time public persons gathered over there. The shopkeeper adjoining to my shop namely Pankaj came to me. Whom I handed over the note of Rs.100/ denomination for checking the same. The adjoining shop keeper Pankaj returned the note to me by saying that this note is fake. Pankaj made a call to the police at 100 No. Police reached at the spot. Said persons was handed over to the police. I also handed over the fake note of Rs.100/ denomination to the police. The search of the said person was conducted by the police and two other notes of 100/ rupee denomination having the same digit no. were found in the pocket of the said person. Those two other notes were also taken by the police in their possession. Police had taken the scooty of the said person in their possession.SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 9 of 13
State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 Police recorded my statement Ex.PW1/A bearing my thumb impression at point A. All the three notes of the same digit no. were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B bearing my thumb impression at point A. Those notes were kept in a envelop which was sealed by the police. Witness pointed out to the accused who is present in court today as the person who gave me fake note of 100 denomination and two other notes were found in his pocket of the same digit no. Witness correctly identified the accused. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C bearing my thumb impression at point A. Personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/D bearing my thumb impression at point A. The scooty no. DL4SBF 5043 was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E bearing my thumb impression at point A. Accused has purchased half kg kathal of Rs.20/ and he gave me a fake note of 100 rupees denomination and I returned the balance of Rs.80/ to him. I am illiterate, therefore, I can not tell the full digit no. of fake note of 100/ rupees denomination but all the three notes of 100 rupees denomination were of the same digit no. I can identify the case property if shown to me. .........."
12. PW2 Pankaj, who is vegetable seller at Lal Bagh has also supported the prosecution case. It was he who called police at 100 number. PW4 Ct. Vikas and PW5 SI Raju Yadav have duly proved as to how two fake currency notes were recovered from right side pocket of the pant worn by accused. They also proved that Madan Chand produced one currency note of Rs.100/, which was given to him by accused. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that even if it is presumed that accused was having in possession three currency notes, the prosecution must prove that accused knew that the same were fake. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that before demonetization on 8.11.2016, SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 10 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 the fake currency notes were circulating in large number in the market and it is possible that while selling or purchasing various articles during the course of his day to day activities, accused might have unknowingly come in possession of these fake currency notes. Therefore, it is argued that accused deserves benefit of doubt on this account also.
13. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor have countered this submission and has referred to the testimony of PW5 SI Raju Yadav. He testified that all the three currency notes were bearing the same serial no. JUL258726. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argues that the fact that all the currency notes were bearing same number is an indication that accused knew the fact that the said currency notes were counterfeit.
14. I have given thoughtful consideration to this submission. As per testimony of PW1 Madan Chand, PW2 Pankaj, PW4 Ct. Vikas and PW5 SI Raju Yadav, the two fake currency notes were found in right side pocket of the pants of accused. One fake currency note, which was given by accused to complainant PW1 Madan Chand, was seized by the Investigating Officer. Perusal of the testimony of PW5 SI Raju Yadav, a cash amount of Rs.530/ was also recovered from the personal search of accused. One purse was also recovered from personal search of accused. It is no where clear in the testimony of SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 11 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 PW5 or in the testimonies of the other witnesses as to whether the two fake currency notes were found separate from the cash amount of Rs.530/ or these fake currency notes were found mixed up in the said cash amount. Perusal of the personal search memo of accused, which is Ex.PW1/D mentions three items, which were recovered from the personal search of accused. These are (1) one mobile phone, (2) cash Rs.530/ and (3) one brown colour leather purse. Neither from the testimonies of the witnesses nor from personal search memo, it becomes clear as to whether the two fake currency notes were mixed up with the other currency notes recovered from accused or not. This aspect is important. If the two currency notes were found separately placed in the pocket of accused, it could be safely presumed that he knew the same to be counterfeit and therefore, had intended to pass on the same in the market. However, if the same were mixed with the other currency notes recovered in personal search, possibility cannot be ruled out that accused might have received the same in some transaction without having knowledge of these being counterfeit. It is true that all the three currency notes were having same number. However, hardly anyone directs his attention to the numbers of the currency notes. Therefore, even if all the three currency notes were having the same number, it is natural that accused might not have SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 12 of 13 State Vs. Sukhvinder Singh Judgement dt. 13.5.2019 noticed the same. One of the basic ingredients of Section 489B IPC and 489C IPC is that accused must have knowledge or reasons to believe that the currency notes in question were counterfeit. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove such knowledge or belief. I may mention here that these are only three currency notes and possibility of accused having the same in possession and using one such currency notes, without having knowledge or belief that the same were counterfeit, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I give benefit of reasonable doubt to accused and accordingly, I acquit him.
15. Since accused is on bail in this case, his bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Accused is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/ with one surety in like amount in terms of Section 437A CrPC.
16. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 13.5.2019. VINOD KUMAR Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Date: 2019.05.13 12:21:30 +0530 (Vinod Kumar) Additional Sessions Judge05 (North) Rohini Courts Delhi SC No.59023/2016, FIR No.86/2014 Page 13 of 13