Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2020
Author: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
Bench: Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
S.B : HON.SHRIJUSTICE VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN
Cr.A. NO.8752/2018
Appellants: 1. Ramkumar Kewat,
(In Jail) S/o late Shri Lakhan Kewat,
aged about 42 years,
Occupation Driver,
R/o Village Dhangawa,
Police Station, Jaithari,
District Anuppur (M.P.)
2. Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma,
S/o late Mahaveer Prasad Verma,
aged about 47 years,
Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Village Ward No.10, Vikas
Nagar, Kotma, Police Station
Kotma, Distt. Anuppur (M.P.)
Vs.
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh,
through Police Station Kotwali,
Shahdol, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)
Shri Naveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri Vishal Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and
Shri Ashok Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(08/05/2020) The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/10/2018 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial 2 No.209/2007 whereby each appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for three months.
2. The case of prosecution against the appellants, in short, is that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) while posted as S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received information on 10/04/2007 that one Ravi Sharma alias Gudda is dealing with fake Indian currency notes and he is coming at bus stand with fake currency notes. SHO- Vijay Pratap Singh called two Panch witnesses Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Md Jakir khan (PW-3). and after informing them recorded the said information in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/1) and moved to spot along with panch witnesses, ASI Pradeep Dwivedi (PW-8), Constable Arvind Pyasi (PW-7), Swatantra Singh, Arvind Dubey, Mahesh Yadav, Satya Narayan (PW-4), Rahees Khan, Pramod Pandey, Shailendra Chaturvedi and driver Chandra Prakas in Government Vehicle No.M.P.03 5682 3 and recorded that outgoing in Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/31).
3. Ravi Sharma met at bus stand and he was informed about his search. Vijay Pratap Singh first made his search along other companions in front of Ravi Sharma and prepared Panchnama Ex.P/2 and P/3 in this regard. Thereafter started searching of Ravi Sharma and found 72 note of Rs.500/-denomination fake Indian currency notes and 190 notes of Rs.100/- denomination in his possession and after perusal of the whole notes, it was found that same number printed on so many notes, seized and prepared search memo (Ex.P/4), seizure memo (Ex.P/5) and arrested Ravi Sharma on spot, prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/6) thereafter came back at Police Station, recorded proceedings in the Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P/32), and registered FIR as Crime No.165/2007 (Ex.P/33) at Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol.
4. Ravi Sharma alias Gudda informed about other co- accused. In the same way on the basis of information took appellant-Ramvishal Verma alias Ramvilas in 4 custody and asked for currency notes. Appellant- Ramvishal Verma furnished information that he is having fake currency notes and kept buried in backyard of his house, Vijay Pratap Singh(PW-9) recorded memorandum (Ex.P/10) before the Panch witnesses and appellant- Ramvishal Verma alias Ramvilas after digging that place, handed over currency notes of Rs.two lakh to Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) which were seized and seizure memo (Ex.P/14)was prepared .
5. In the same way, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) interrogated appellant-Ram Kumar Kewat who informed about having fake currency notes and kept buried in the floor of his room, prepared his memorandum (Ex.P/11). Appellant- Ram Kumar Kewat dug out the currency notes and handed over the same to Vijay Pratap Singh who prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15) before the Panch witnesses . Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) sent all seized notes to the Bank Note Press, Dewas through S.P., Shahdol for examination. Bank Note Press after examining the currency notes submitted a report 5 (Ex.P/38) and found all seized notes fake of Indian currency. After investigation charge sheet was filed against appellants along with other co accused.
6. Learned trial Court framed charges against both appellants-Ramkumar Kewat and Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma. Both the appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded for trial.
7. Prosecution to bring the charges at home examined 11 witnesses. Appellant-Ramkumar Kewat while examining under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. put defence that he was going to see his Mousiya at Kotma. Police escort of Police Station Bhalumada caught hold him and logged him in the Police Station and thereafter sent him to the Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol. He did not do any offence he has falsely been implicated in the matter. Another appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma while examining under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. put defence that he was at home. Police party of Police Station, Bhalumada called him. When he went to Police Station, Bhalumada, they kept him behind bar in the night and on 6 the next day they shifted him to Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol. He did not do any offence. He he has falsely been implicated in the matter and produced one defence witness Semjeet Rajak (DW-1).
8. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties delivered judgment dated 31/10/2018. Appellants- Ramkumar Kewat and Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma along with other co-accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC and sentenced each appellant to undergo five years RI and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
9. Both the appellants, being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, have jointly filed this appeal on the ground that Police seized the fake currency notes without custodial interrogation of both the appellants which indicates that the Police had intentionally implicated the appellants in this case and independent seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. Memorandum statement of the other co-accused are not admissible in evidence. There is no material 7 available on record to convict the appellants. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The finding of the trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The defence version has not been accepted by the trial Court. Thus, it has been prayed to allow this appeal and discharge the appellants from the charge levelled against them.
10. Per contra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, submits that both the appellants were found with fake currency in their possession. They did not disclose that why they had fake currency in their possession. Sufficient material is available on record against the appellants, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of trial Court i.e. S.T. No.209/2007.
12. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9), in his statement, stated that on 10/04/2007 he was posted as SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol received a tip off that Ravi Sharma alias Gudda R/o Chandiya is coming with fake currency notes 8 and he deals with the fake currency. This witness called Panch witnesses-Chandraprakash Soni and Mohd. Jakir Khan and after recording the information in the Rojnamcha Sanha went to bus stand along with other Police escort where they found Ravi Sharma . He uttered his name and during search, this witness categorically stated fake currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.100/-.denomination found in his possession, same number is printed in so many notes. This witness interrogated Ravi Sharma. On the basis of the information furnished by Ravi Sharma, he went to inquire from the other co-accused who received the fake currency notes from Ravi Sharma (since dead).
13. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) further stated that he went to co-accused incuding appellant-Ramvishal Verma. This witness categorically stated that he took appellant- Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma in custody who furnished information and conffesed that he received fake currency of Rs.two lakh from Ravi Sharma and buried behind his house in backyard (Barii). This information 9 provided by appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma before independent witnesses Chandraprakash Soni(PW10) and Ramji sharma(PW2). This witness recorded memorandum (Ex.P/10) and further stated that appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma dug out the place and submitted bundle of fake currency notes having same number in so many notes. This witness seized that currency notes in presence of independent witness Ramji Mishra and Chandrakant Soni and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/14). Perused seizure memo (Ex.P/14). 20 bundles of Rs.100/- denomination rapped in polythene seized from the custody of appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma.
14. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) further stated that on the basis of information provided by Ravi Sharma alias Gudda, he went to inquire the fact from appellant- Ramkumar Kewat who lived in Village Dhangawan and interrogated appellant- Ramkumar Kewat in custody. He provided information that he received fake currency and deals with fake currency having Rs.80,000/- and kept 10 buried in the ground in the room where he slept . Appellant Ramkumar Kewat went to the place and after diging out the fake currency notes which were eight bundles of Rs.100/- notes having same number on so many notes. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) prepared memorandum of appellant-Ramkumar Kewat (Ex.P/11) and seizure memo (Ex.P/15).
15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that none of the independent witnesses have supported the memorandum of information and seizure from the appellants. Independent witnesses of the memorandum Ex.P/10, P/11 and seizure memo Ex.P/14 and P/15 are Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) and Ramji Mishra (PW-2).
16. Chandrakant Soni (PW-10) stated that none of the appellants had been interrogated by the Police before him and neither they furnished any information nor any property seized from their possession . This witness clearly stated that nothing has been done before him. He stated that he was doing the job of driver and went to Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol and there Police 11 obtained his signatures on some papers . Prosecution declared him hostile and on asking leading question, he denied the fact that both the appellants furnished any information before him to the Police and also denied for seizure of fake notes in his presence from the appellants.
17. Ramji Mishra (PW-2) also not supported the memorandum of information and any seizure of notes from the possession of the appellants. This witness also turned hostile and on asking leading question, he did not support the case of prosecution. This witness clearly stated that he put signature on the papers. This witness categorically stated that he never went to Police Station, Bhalumada, he signed all the papers at Police Station, Kotwali, Shahdol.
18. Independent witnesses of the memorandum (Ex.P/10 & P/11) and seizure memo (Ex.P/14 and P/15) have not supported the proceeding conducted by Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). Both the independent witnesses clearly stated that nothing has been done before them. Now it is witness-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9), 12 Investigating Officer, who seized the fake notes from the possession of appellants at their instance. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Investigating Officer falsely implicated both appellants. In seizure memo, no specific details of the notes are mentioned. If the notes seized from the possession of both the appellants are fake, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) should have specifically mentioned the number, how many notes are having the same number and what number was printed on that notes. In seizure memo no where he mentioned the details of property and only mentioned the fact that bundles of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- notes seized from the possession of appellants which is not sufficient to show that how Investigating Officer came to know that the notes which he seized prima facie seems fake. He seized the fake notes from the possession of co-accused Ravi Sharma and on the basis of seized notes, he implicated both the appellants by mentioning the notes seized from the possession of the appellants. 13
19. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, perused the statement of Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). In para-6, this witness stated that he went to Village Dhangawan and took appellant-Ramkumar Kewat in custody and on interrogation, appellant- Ramkumar Kewat stated that he is having fake note of Rs.80,000/- and furnished information where he kept that notes. This witness further stated that he went to the place along with appellant-Ramkumar Kewat and appellant-Ramkumar Kewat handed over that notes which were buried in his bed room. Perused memorandum (Ex.P/11) and seizure memo (Ex.P/15). Memorandum (Ex.P/11) prepared on 12/4/2007 at 17.45 'O' Clock and seizure (Ex.P/15) made at 18.00 'O' Clock. No doubt in Ex.P/15 only it is mentioned that so many notes were having same number but neither the number mentioned in the seizure memo nor the details that how many notes were having same number. It is clearly reflected from the seizure memo that after seizing fake notes, packet was not sealed on the spot. 14
20. Witness-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) also prepared memorandum of information (Ex.P/10) on the basis of information of appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma. This memorandum was taken at Police Station, Kotma on 12/4/2007 at 15.15 'O' Clock and seizure memo of the notes (Ex.P/14) prepared on the spot on 12/4/2007 at 15.45 'O' Clock. In this seizure memo, this witness stated that so many notes are having same number but no where stated that how many notes are having the same number and in this memo, it is reflected that seized notes were not sealed at the time of seizure. None of the independent witnesses supported the proceeding done by Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). Ex.P/10 prepared at Police Station, Kotma and Ex.P/11 prepared at Village Dhangawan, Police Station, Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur. Both proceedings in relation to both appellants did on the same date i.e. 12/4/2007 within three hours in the territorial jurisdiction of the different-different Police Stations.
15
21. Perused the cross-examination of Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). In para-16 this witness categorically stated that he along with police staff of Police Station, Jaithari went to the house of appellant-Ramkumar Kewat. Police staff of Police Station, Jaithari led this witness to the house of appellant-Ramkumar Kewat and this witness also stated that he has not made any entry in any Rojnamcha Sanha of the concerned Police Station.
22. As per Ex.P/10, appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma furnished information at Police Station, Kotma. Meaning thereby, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) was present in Police Station, Kotma and called appellant- Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma there but not made any entry in the Rojnamch Sanha at Police Station, Kotma. He went to the house of appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma along with independent Panch witnesses, but, none of the Police staff of Kotma went there.
23. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) in para-18 clearly admitted that no impression of seal affixed on the seizure memo (Ex.P/14 and P/15) and during seizer of the notes, 16 series number and note number printed on notes did not mention in both the seizure memos (Ex.P/14 and P/15).
24. In this case the witness of memorandum and seizure is only Investigation Officer Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9). How to scrutinize the evidence of Police Officer who is Investigating Officer , Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girja Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 3106, has held in paras-24 to 26 as under :
"24. In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a Court of Law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of Complainant or a Police Official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is 17 otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence.
25. It is not necessary to refer to various decisions on the point. We may, however, state that before more than half a century, in the leading case of Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. stated:
"The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration."
(emphasis supplied)
26. In Tahir v. State (Delhi), 1996 (3) SCC 338, dealing with a similar question, Dr. A. S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated:
"Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form 18 basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
25. On the basis of the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited case-law, again perused the statement of Investigating Officer-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9).
26. As discussed above, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) after seizing the notes from the possession of both the appellants did not mention details of the notes in the seizure memo. He only mentioned that bundles of Rs.100/- and Rs.500/- notes were found at the instance of both the appellants. How he came to know that notes seized were fake notes because he neither mentioned serial number or note number printed in the seized notes nor he mentioned that how many notes were having the same serial number or note number.
27. Perused all the evidence adduced during trial by the prosecution. No separate list is appended with the seizure 19 memo having details of the seized notes signed by the independent witnesses. Ex.P/35 is a draft prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol for sending the seized notes to Manager, Bank Note Press, Govt. of India, Dewas for examination of the seized notes. In that list details of the notes are mentioned, seized from the possession of appellants-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma and Ramkumar Kewat , however, it is not tallied with the seizure memo.
28. After perusal of the whole cross-examination, it is not reflected that Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) is having any enmity or personal grudge against the appellants to implicate them falsely in this case. Memorandum (Ex.P/10) and seizure (Ex.P/14) were prepared at Police Station, Kotma, Distt. Anuppur in connection with appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma and memorandum (Ex.P/11) and seizure memo (Ex.P/15) prepared at Village Dhangawan, Police Station Jaithari, Distt. Anuppur. Witness-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) clearly stated that he went to Police Station, Jaithari and 20 the Police personnel of Jaithari took him at the resident of appellant-Ramkumar Kewat, however, no Rojnamcha entry was made in that Police Station. Independent seizure witnesses have not supported the information furnished by both the appellants and seizure of the notes at their instance.
29. No doubt, FIR (Ex.P/33) registered by Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) against co-accused-Ravi Sharma alias Gudda on the basis of fake notes seized from his possession. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) prepared Rojnamcha entry of outgoing and incoming and details of the seizure of notes found in possession of co-accused- Ravi Sharma alias Gudda. However, when he went to inquire the matter from appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma, he first went to Police Station, Kotma where he called appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma and appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma furnished information (Ex.P/10) at Police Station, Kotma. Why the entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha was not made by Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) is questionable and 21 why he had not made an entry when he seized notes from the possession of appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma is also questionable .
30. In the same way, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) stated that he went to Police Station, Jaithari and with the help of Police staff of Police Station, Jaithari reached at Village Dhangawan where appellant-Ramkumar Kewat was residing. He prepared memorandum (Ex.P/11) on the basis of information furnished by appellant-Ramkumar Kewat and by seizing notes at the instance of appellant- Ramkumar Kewat prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15). Why Investigating Officer-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) did not enter all these proceedings in Rojnamcha Sanha kept at Police Station, Jaithari is questionable and why he did not recorded the statement of any Police staff of Police Station, Jaithari who went along with him at Village Dhangawan is also questionable.
31. Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) recorded first information report (Ex.P/33) and registered Crime No.165/2007 and stated on the basis of information 22 furnished by accused-Ravi Sharma alias Gudda about both appellants, he went to inquire that fact from the appellants. Neither he submitted the statement of co- accused Ravi Sharma alias Gudda in evidence nor submitted memorandum of co-accused Ravi Sharma alias Gudda in which he furnished information about both the appellants. No doubt, Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) has recorded the FIR against co-accused Ravi Sharma alias Gudda , names of the appellants were not found place in that FIR. Investigating Officer-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-
9) should have furnished all the details in evidence that how he came to know that the appellant is having a fake note. He stated that Ravi Sharma alias Gudda furnished information, but, no such evidence produced during trial. If he is an informant, he should not investigate the matter further.
32. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 in para-13 has held as under :
23
"13. A fair trial to an accused, a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution, would be a hollow promise if the investigation in a NDPS case were not to be fair or raises serious questions about its fairness apparent on the face of the investigation. In the nature of the reverse burden of proof, the onus will lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of it that the investigation was fair, judicious with no circumstances that may raise doubts about its veracity. The obligation of proof beyond reasonable doubt will take within its ambit a fair investigation, in absence of which there can be no fair trial. If the investigation itself is unfair, to require the accused to demonstrate prejudice will be fraught with danger vesting arbitrary powers in the police which may well lead to false implication also. Investigation in such a case would then become an empty formality and a farce. Such an interpretation therefore naturally has to be avoided."
33. Investigating Officer-Vijay Pratap Singh (PW-9) had not acted properly and investigated the matter properly in relation to both the appellants as discussed above which leads to unfair investigation. If there is unfair investigation against the appellants, there will be a danger if this Court totally relies upon the evidence of 24 Investigating Officer in relation to the information furnished by the appellants in custody and seizure of the fake notes from the possession of each appellant. Independent witnesses turned hostile and the evidence of Investigating Officer in connection with furnishing of information and seizure from the appellants is not totally reliable. It cannot be said that the seizure of the fake notes were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
34. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra) in para-14 and 17 clearly held as under :
"14. That investigation in a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on part of the accused was noticed in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, as follows (SCC p.269, paras 32-33) :
"32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The 25 investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer "is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth".
33. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma this Court has held as under: (SSC pp.263-65, paras 57, 59 % 61) "57. ... Investigation is a delicate painstaking and dextrous process. Ethical conduct is absolutely essential for investigative professionalism. ... Therefore, before countenancing such allegations of mala fides or bias it is salutary and an onerous duty and responsibility of the court, not only to insist upon making specific and definite allegations of personal animosity against the investigating officer at the start of the investigation but also must insist to establish and prove them from the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court.
* * *
59. Malice in law could be inferred from doing of wrongful act intentionally without any just cause or excuse or without there being reasonable relation to the purpose of the exercise of statutory power. ...
* * *
61. An investigating officer who is not sensitive to the constitutional mandates, may be prone to trample upon the personal liberty 26 of a person when he is actuated by mala fides."
17. In a criminal prosecution, there is an obligation cast on the investigator not only to be fair, judicious and just during investigation, but also that the investigation on the very face of it must appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine apprehension in the mind of an accused and not mere fanciful, that the investigation was not fair. In the circumstances, if an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the investigation would therefore be a foregone conclusion."
35. On the basis of forgoing discussions, this Court is of the view that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that bundles of note recovered at the instance of appellants and found to be fake notes. Prosecution also failed to prove that the notes sent to Dewas Note Press for examination were recovered from 27 the possession of both appellants . In totality, this Court finds that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fake currency notes seized from the possession of the appellants which were kept for transactions as the real currency notes. Learned trial Court erred in convicting appellants-Ramkumar Kewat and Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC.
36. In view of aforesaid discussions, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant- Ramkumar Kewat and appellant-Ramvishal alias Ramvilas Verma is hereby set aside. The appellants are in jail, they be released immediately if not required in any case. If any I.A.pending, stand dismissed.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2020.05.08 11:28:54 +05'30' HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cr.A. NO.8752/2018 Ramkumar Kewat and another Vs. State of M.P. ORDER Post for : /05/2020 (Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ( /05/2020) 29 On the basis of the information provided by Ravi Sharma alias Gudda, Vijay Pratap Singh went to the house of other co-accused Anna alias Rashid who was residing in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Bhalumada, Distt. Anuppur. After identifying Anna alias Rashid, took him in custody and intercepted him. He provided information that he was having fake currency notes and kept the same in his house below the bed. Vijay Pratap Singh moved along with panch witnesses, co-accused Anna alias Rashid provided two bundle of currency notes of Rs.100/-. Vijay Pratap Singh prepared memorandum (Ex.P/6) and after seizing the same prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/12).
5. On the basis of the information given by Ravi Sharma, intercepted co-accused Hariom Tiwari. He informed that he was having fake currency notes of Rs. Two lakh and covered the same in polyethylene bag and buried in the sand at the bank of Kewai river. Vijay Pratap Singh recorded memorandum (Ex.P/8) and seized the fake currency notes at the instance of Hariom Tiwari and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/13).