Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Ahmed Saddiqi vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ3053
Author: Nirmal Singh
Bench: Nirmal Singh
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J.
1.This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 5-9-2001 vide which he was convicted under Section 489-C, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for three years,
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3-10-2000, Sanjiv Kuraar Sharma, Inspector Customs was on duty at Railway Station, Attari, where accused submitted his baggage for checking. During the course of checking. Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Sharma recovered forty fake Indian currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- along with one note of Rs. 500/-, totalling Rs. 4500/-. He was produced before the S.H.O., Government Railway Police, Attari. On the basis of letter of Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, F.I.R. under Section 489-C, I.P.C. was registered against the accused. The investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Tejinder Singh, who arrested him and took into possession the fake currency notes.
3. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. He was charged under Section 489-C, I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, Inspector Customs, P.W. 2 ASI. Tejinder Singh, Investigating Officer, P.W. 3 Anil Sharma, A.G.M. and P.W. 4 MHC Sukhwinder Singh.
5. The accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. He took the following plea :--
"I am innocent, I along with my wife had come from Karachi in Pakistan. We had taken Rs. 12000/- for our expenses from Habib Bank Rawalpindi besides expenses for purchasing the tickets. We exchanged Rs. 6000/- for Rs. 4500/- at the Bagha Border on the Pakistan side. I have no knowledge about the Indian currency. I do not know the features of the genuineness of the Indian currency. Customs Insp. had taken away the currency notes and came back after an hour. He had replaced my genuine currency for the forged one. Rs. 6000/- was exchanged by my wife at SBI vide receipt Ex. DA. Receipt for withdrawing Rs. 12000/-is Ex. DB."
6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him vide judgment and order dated 5-9-2001 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
8. It will be appropriate to notice the provisions of Section 489-C, I.P.C. under which the appellant has been convicted :--
"Possession of forged 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."
9. A perusal of the section shows that for convicting the offender under Section 489-C, I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that the offender has a reason to believe that the currency notes are forged or counterfeit or he has used those notes as genuine one.
10. After going through the evidence on record and taking into consideration the explanation given by the appellant, it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant knew or had a reason to believe that the notes recovered from him were forged or he intended to use the same as genuine.
11. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Sharma, who was the Investigator of the case and P.W. 2 ASI Tejinder Singh, who corroborated the prosecution version. However, from their evidence it has not been proved that the appellant had the knowledge that the currency notes in his possession were counterfeit. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant came to India along with his wife on a valid passport. They exchanged Rs. 6000/-from the counter of State Bank of India, Foreign Exchange, Attari Rail, Amritsar vide Ex. DA. The appellant gave an explanation that he along with his wife had taken Rs. 12,000/- for their expenses from Habib Bank, Rawalpindi, besides expenses for purchasing the tickets. They exchanged Rs. 6000/- for Rs. 4500/- of Indian currency at Bagha Border. He further disclosed that the Custom Inspector took the currency notes from him and after an hour, currency notes were replaced with forged one. He also placed on record the receipt of the State Bank of India, Ex. DA and receipt of withdrawing Rs. 12,000/-, Ex. DB. From the possession of the appellant, Pakistani currency had not been recovered and only Indian fake currency was recovered. The appellant would not exchange genuine notes with fake currency. This fact shows that somewhere the appellant has been cheated and his genuine currency was replaced with the fake one. Even from the record, it is clear that the explanation of the appellant was not sought in relation to the fact that he knew or had reason to believe that the note recovered from him was forged as also to the fact that in spite of this knowledge, he intended to use the same as genuine. In view of this, ratio of the judgments reported as M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, and Gurnam Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1992 (1) Rec Cri R 661 squarely cover the point in Issue. In M. Mammutti's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :--
"We are not able to find any inconsistency between the answer given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 before the Sessions Judge and that before the Committing Court specially on the point that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. Mr. Nettar submitted that once the appellant is found in possession of counterfeit notes, he must be presumed to know that the notes are counterfeit. If the notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit such a presumption could reasonably be drawn, But the difficult is that the prosecution has not, put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused knew that the notes were of such a nature. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the notes also. In these circumstances, it is impossible for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentences passed on the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him."
12. In Gurnam Singh's case (1992 (1) Rec Cri R (VI) (supra), this Court had after adverting to Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, opined to the following effect :--
"At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that the appellant had been charged under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The portions of these provisions which have been underlined above, would show that before a person can be held guilty under these sections, it must be proved that such a person, while using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knew or had reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. Similarly, it is required to be established that if a person is possessed of a forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note, he can be held guilty of the provision if he knew or had 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."
13. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 845-SB of 2001 (Saiyyad Iftikhar Hussain v. State of Punjab) decided on 12-5-2004 (reported in 2004 (2) Chand Cri C 243).
14. In the case in hand also, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had the knowledge or intention to use the currency notes as genuine one. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant without giving any cogent, reasoning.
15. In view of the above discussion, I accept this appeal and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He be set free Immediately, if not required in any other case.