Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh vs State Of Haryana on 18 February, 2014
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Verma Sunil
Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011 1 2014.03.03 15:52
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011
Date of decision 18 .02.2014.
Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh
...... Appellants.
versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.S.1529 SB of 2010
Santosh
...... Appellant.
versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present :- Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant, in both appeals.
Mr. Amit Kaushik, Senior Deputy A G, Haryana, in both
appeals.
K.C.PURI, J.
By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. S. 2021 SB of 2011 titled as Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh versus State of Haryana and Criminal Appeal No. 1529 SB of 2010 titled as Santosh versus State of Haryana preferred by the accused praying for Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011 2 their acquittal. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the same FIR, therefore, these are being disposed of together in order to avoid any repetition. For convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. S. 2021 SB of 2003 titled as Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh versus State of Haryana.
2. Mohammad Montu alias Rajesh-appellant has directed the Criminal Appeal No.2021 SB of 2011 against the judgment dated 7.6.2011 and order dated 8.06.2011 passed by Shri R.S.Virk, the then learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide which he had been convicted under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half years.
3. Santosh-appellant has directed the Criminal Appeal No.1529 SB of 2010 against the judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 passed by Shri Ramendra Jain, the then learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide which he stood convicted under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code ( in short
- the IPC ), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that on 14.05.2009 accused Jiyaulhaq, Mohammad Montu and Santosh were found having in their conscious possession 76, 95 and 33 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1000/- each respectively knowing or having reasons to believe the same Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011 3 to be counterfeit currency notes. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations challan was presented in the Court for trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Inspector Satender Kumar (PW-1), Girish Kumar Draftsman (PW-2), SI Prem Chand (PW-3), Constable Rampal (PW-4), MHC Sunil Kumar, SI Raj Singh (PW-
6), Inspector Hemant Kumar (PW-7) and closed the prosecution evidence.
6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P. C, the above named accused Mohammad Montu and his two co-accused namely Jiyaulhaq and Santosh pleaded their false implication.
7. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties convicted and sentenced the accused vide impugned judgments and orders, as aforesaid.
8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and orders, the present separate appeals have been directed by the accused-appellants, as aforesaid.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in order to constitute an offence under Section 489(C) of the IPC, prosecution is required to prove that appellants have the knowledge that currency notes are counterfeit. That evidence is missing in both these case. To support this contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authorities Reman @ Raman & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2009(1) Criminal Court Cases page 0385 ( Chhattisgarh High Court ) ; State Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011 4 by Lashkar Police Station, Mysore vs. M.V.Srinivasa reported in 2004 (2) Criminal Court Cases page 0538 (Karnataka High Court) and Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 (1) Criminal Court Cases page 0208 (Bombay High Court).
11. I have considered the said submissions and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
12. Similar arguments were advanced before the trial Court and were rightly repelled by the trial Court. The currency notes involved in the case of Reman @ Raman & Anr's case (supra) and Abdul Majeed Abdul Reheman Sarkhot's case (supra) were few in nature. However, in the present case, the recovery from the appellant/accused Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh was 76 currency notes of the denomination of 1000/- each and from Santosh 33 currency notes of the denomination of 1000/- each were recovered. Such a number of currency notes cannot be said to be kept without knowledge. So, the above said contention is meritless.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that appellant Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh has been acquitted in one case and another case is pending against him. The maximum punishment under Section 489(C) of the IPC is seven years. The Court can award punishment upto seven years or fine or both under Section 489(C) of the IPC and the sentence awarded is excessive. So, prayer has been made for taking lenient view regarding quantum of sentence.
14. I have considered the said submission.
Criminal Appeal No. S.2021 SB of 2011 5
15. So far as accused Santosh is concerned, he is not a previous convict nor any other case is stated to be pending as per custody certificate. He has already undergone incarceration for a period of two years four months and nineteen days whereas Mohammad Montu @ Rajesh accused has already undergone incarceration for a period of three years ten months and two days.
16. So, in view of the above circumstances, the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 489(C) of the IPC stands affirmed and the sentence imposed by the trial Court stands reduced to the period already undergone. However, their sentence of fine stands affirmed. The said amount of fine shall be deposited within two months from today, if already not deposited, failing which they shall undergo the imprisonment in respect of the default clause imposed by the trial Court.
17. Both the appeals stand disposed of to the extent mentioned above.
18. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE February 18 , 2014 sv