Gujarat High Court
Mahendra @ Budhiya Dhirajpal Chapra vs State Of on 3 July, 2013
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
MAHENDRA @ BUDHIYA DHIRAJPAL CHAPRA....Appellant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) R/CR.A/1561/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1561 of 2008 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1437 of 2008 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1071 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ MAHENDRA @ BUDHIYA DHIRAJPAL CHAPRA....Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PV PATADIYA(CR.A NO.1561/2008) MR H. AHMED (CR.A NO.1437/2008) MR VAIBHAV A VYAS (CR.A NO.1071/2008), ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR HL JANI, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Date : 03/07/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These appeals are filed by the original accused nos.1,2 and 3. They along with the fourth accused Hasmukh Umiyashankar Joshi were convicted by the learned Fast Track Judge, Junagadh, for offences punishable under sections 489A and 489D read with section 120B of the IPC, for offences punishable under sections 489B read with 120B of the IPC and for offences punishable under sections 489C read with section 120B of the IPC in Sessions Case No.81/2005 by judgement dated 31.12.2007. For offences under section 489A and 489D read with section 120B of the IPC, they were sentenced to life imprisonment, fine was also awarded. For offences under section 489B read with section 120B of the IPC, they were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. For offences under section 489C read with section 120B of IPC, they were awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is this sentence and conviction which the appellants have challenged before us.
We may record that the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1437/2008, Kalpesh alias Lalo Chaganbhai Monpara -original accused no.2, as per the jail report submitted by the learned APP, expired on 16.8.2011. Criminal Appeal No.1437/2008 therefore, abates.
Briefly stated the prosecution case was as under :
On 4.7.2005, on a previous intelligence that Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra- original accused no.1 along with his accomplices was travelling on a Hero Honda motorcycle carrying fake currency notes with a view to circulating them in the villages of Junagadh Taluka, the police party kept a watch at Sabalpur cross road near a by-pass on Dhoraji road in the outskirts of city of Junagadh. At about 13:15 hours, the motorcycle of the given description arrived at the spot. There were three persons on the motorcycle. They were intercepted. All the three were carrying fake currency notes of different denominations, principally of Rs. 500/- Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. Accused no.1 Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra was carrying fake notes of a total of Rs.20,000/-. Accused no.2-Kalpesh alias Lalo Chaganbhai Monpara was carrying fake currency notes of Rs.10,000/-. He was also carrying genuine currency notes of Rs.9300/-. Accused no.3 - Mukesh Mohanbhai Vora was carrying fake currency notes totalling to Rs.10,000/-. After drawing panchnama such currency notes were sent for analysis. Raiding party along with the accused had thereafter, gone to premises to which they were led by accused no.2 -Kalpesh alias Lalo Chaganbhai Monpara. Upon knocking of the door accused no.4 - Hasmukh Umiyashankar Joshi opened it. It was found that printing of fake currency notes was going on. The xerox machine, stationery, other equipments, fully and partially printed currency notes were also seized from the spot.
Charge was framed at exh.1 alleging that all the four accused had committed offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D read with section 120B of the IPC read with section 114 of the IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted. Judgement of conviction and sentence was rendered.
Panch witness-Aamadbhai Isabhai PW-1(exh.14) who had accompanied the raiding party turned hostile. He however, admitted that panchnama carried his signature. The articles seized from the premises which were sealed also carried his signature. The partially printed currency notes also carried his signature.
Kasambhai Ibrahimbhai, PW-2, exh.16 and Harunbhai Hajibhai, PW-3, exh.17 were the panch witnesses of discovery panchnama. As per the prosecution, one fake currency note of Rs.100/- was recovered from the house of accused no.1- Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra. These witnesses had also turned hostile. Such discovery was though, established by the investigating officer in his deposition. To our mind, however, nothing significant turns on this discovery.
Vishram Dhanjibhai Kharadi, PW-4, exh.20, was the police officer in charge of the raiding party. He deposed that on 4.7.2005, on prior information, they had laid a trap to intercept accused no.1 - Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra supposed to be travelling on Hero Honda motorcycle of given registration number along with his accomplices. He along with staff members and panch witnesses hid themselves. At about 13:15 hours, motorcycle reached at the crossroads. It was stopped and the riders were searched from whom fake currency notes(including regular currency notes from Kalpesh-accused no.2) as mentioned above were seized.
The witness further stated that the police party were led by accused no.2- Kalpesh to a place which was his house. They travelled in the police vehicle as directed by Kalpesh. They came to the house of Kalpesh as shown by him. They knocked at the door. From inside accused no.4-Hasmukh Umiyashankar Joshi opened it. Inside the premises they found one xerox machine along with scanner which was seized and sealed. They also found Rs.100/- note printed on one side. From the person of accused no.4-Hasmukh Umiyashankar Joshi, they also found 22 notes of Rs.100/-, out of which 17 notes carried the same series and the same number. They also seized other stationery including paper, paper-cutter and plastic foot-rulers and chemical colors. From the premises they also found light bill of one Jayaben and ration card in the name of Bhagwanjibhai who was stated to be the grandfather of Kalpesh-accused no.2. They also found election card of Kalpesh from the the said site.
Valjibhai Damjibhai Jethva-PW-12 exh.41 was also the police officer of the same raiding party. He also gave similar account before the Court.
Prakash Jamnadas, PW-5, exh.24, was panch witness of the raid. He had also turned hostile but agreed that the panchnama carried his signatures on every page as well as in the last page which he made in the presence of police and other panch witnesses. He also agreed that mudammal articles no. 1 to 12 were sealed in different covers on which there were slips which carried his signature as well as of the other panch witness.
Chandrakant Bhagwanji-PW-6, exh.25, was the owner of the stationery shop from where some of the stationery was purchased. In his deposition, he stated that the papers, foot-ruler, cutter, pencils, etc., were purchased by two boys from his store. He agreed that the bill was issued by him for such purchases. He however, could not give any description of the purchasers.
Important testimony is that of witness Parag Arunkumar Rupareliya-PW-7, exh.26. He had a electronic store by the name Kai computers in Mangalmurti complex at Junagadh. He deposed that on 18.6.2005, Kalpesh-accused no.2. Had purchased a computer colour xerox machine for Rs.10,500/-. Kalpesh-accused had come along with another person. Though the witness was not specific about the name of such person, he did identify the person accompanying Kalpesh as Mahendra Dhirajlal-accused no.1. He stated that Kalpesh had purchased the machines saying he wants to start a business of driving license. He identified the bill issued for such purchase which was given exh.27.
The prosecution had also examined four witnesses, Lalitkumar Shamjibhai-PW-8(exh.28), Yogesh Kanjibhai - PW-9 (exh.29), Chandubhai Bavanjibhai - PW-10(exh.30) and Kishanbhai Damjibhai Radadiya - PW-11 (exh.31) to putforth the theory that the accused after printing the fake currency notes, had also started circulating such currency in the market. All these witnesses however, turned hostile. Through Lalitkumar Shamjibhai-PW-8(exh.28), the prosecution wanted to establish that he knew accused no.1 to 3, accused no.1-Mahendra alias Budhiya and accused no.2-Kalpesh had met him at a Paan stall in his village and offered to sell him the fake currency at half the value. The other witnesses were supposed to be present at the Paan stall at that time and also were allegedly taken into confidence by these accused in their attempts. All the four witnesses turned hostile and therefore, in our opinion, the prosecution cannot at-least in this respect suggest the involvement of the accused.
The Investigating officer Pramodbhai Kanjibhai Diyora-PW-13 was examined at exh.44. He had recorded the FIR of Vishram Dhanjibhai Kharadi, PW-4 and undertaken the investigation. He describes at length the steps taken by him including of sending the currency notes for analysis and also of recording the statements of several witnesses.
The prosecution had produced at exh.27 the invoice of Kai computers showing purchase of one HP office jet printer for a sum of Rs.10,500/- which invoice was issued in the name of Kalpeshbhai Patel. The FSL report was produced at exh.57 which showed the various currency notes to be fake. The report of-course, was not unequivocal on whether such printing was in fact done on the seized printer.
We may recall that accused no.2 Kalpesh alias Lalo Chaganbhai Monpara has since then expired. Accused no.4-Hasmukh Umiyashankar Joshi has not preferred any appeal. We may therefore, confine our discussion to the role of accused no.1- Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra and accused no.3-Mukesh Mohanbhai Vora.
To our opinion, there was overwhelming evidence to suggest the involvement of these two accused in dealing in fake currency notes. What exact roles these accused played and for which offences they can be convicted, would be seen through our discussion hereafter. At this stage, we may however, briefly refer to the relevant evidence. We may recall that panch witnesses of raiding party had turned hostile. Nevertheless, Vishram Dhanjibhai Kharadi PW-4(exh.20) and Valjibhai Damjibhai Jethva PW-12(exh.41) had given a detailed account of the manner in which on a prior tip off, the police party and panch witnesses had waited for the motorcycle carrying Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra and his accomplices and other details pertaining to their search, seizure of fake currency notes, being guided to the house of Kalpesh-accused no.2 from where further fake currency notes, printer, stationery, cutter and other paraphernalia were recovered. We have no reason to discard this account more so since both the panch witnesses did agree that panchnama carried their signatures. Prakash Jamnadas PW-5, in fact elaborated that panchnama carried his signatures on every page as well as on last page. The seized mudammal articles were put in cover on which seal carried his as well as other panchas signatures. The fact that such currency notes were fake is never challenged by the accused during the entire trial. In any case, even if any proof was needed, the same was produced by the prosecution in the form of report of Forensic Science Laboratory which established beyond any doubt that such notes were fake. We therefore, have reliable evidence to suggest that all the four accused were carrying fake currency notes and that they were also aware about such notes not being genuine.
In addition to such unquestionable evidence, we also have on record the evidence to the effect that in the premises occupied by Kalpesh-accused no.2, printing of fake currency notes was going on. When the raiding party reached the site and knocked at the door, accused no.4 opened it from inside. The printing machine along with other articles in use of printing were recovered. From the same premises, several fake notes either fully or partially printed were also recovered. Such evidence was duly corroborated by the accounts of the shop owners. Chandrakant Bhagwanji-PW-6 was the owner of stationery store. He agreed that certain stationery seized by the police was purchased from his store. He of-course, could not give description of the persons who had made such purchases. But Parag Arunkumar Rupareliya PW-7, exh.26, the owner of Kai computer store, identified Kalpesh accused no.2 and Mahendra accused no.1 as the two persons who had purchased the colour printing machine from his store. He identified the invoice of Rs.10,500/- issued by him for such sale.
This important deposition of the witness Parag Arunkumar Rupareliya PW-7 and materials recovered by the police from the premise of Kalpesh accused no.2, unerringly link accused no.2-Kalpesh alias Lalo Chaganbhai Monpara to the process of printing of fake currency notes. It was this accused who had made the purchase of colour printer. The printing operations were going on in the premises occupied by him. He was also found with fake currency notes when intercepted by the police party. He would thus be liable for conviction under section 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D. Though he has already expired, such findings are necessary since other accused have been charged for those offences read with section 120B and 114 of the IPC. It is in this respect that we would examine the role of other two accused namely, accused no.1 and accused no.3.
Insofar as accused no.1 is concerned, he had accompanied Kalpesh-accused no.2 for purchase of colour printer. He also had travelled in the same motorcycle along with Kalpesh accused no.2 and was found individually carrying large number of fake currency notes. His involvement in offences under section 489A read with section 120B therefore, stands established. Section 120B makes provision for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Term conspiracy has been defined in terms of section 120-A of the IPC and can be stated to have been committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means. For an agreement of an illegal act, no overt act is necessary. However, for an agreement to commit an act which by itself is not illegal, the offence is not constituted unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement.
It is stated in number of decisions that by the very nature of things a conspiracy is not likely to be hatched in the open and it is unlikely to have any direct proof. It is of-course possible to establish conspiracy through direct or even circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the basic ingredients of conspiracy. Conspiracy of-course can be culled out from proved circumstances. In case of Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra etc., v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and another etc. reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 45, it was observed that the agreement is the gist of the offence under section 120B. In order to constitute a conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose.
In case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2420, it was observed as under :
96.
....Thus, a cursory look to the provisions contained in Section 120-A reveals that a criminal conspiracy envisages an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or an act which by itself may not be illegal but the same is done or executed by illegal means. Thus the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a fact situation criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. In other words, where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A of the IPC, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions in such a situation do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120-B since from its very nature a conspiracy must be conceived and hatched in complete secrecy, because otherwise the whole purpose may be frustrated and it is common experience and goes without saying that only in very rare cases one may come across direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy to commit any crime and in most of the cases it is only the circumstantial evidence which is available from which an inference giving rise to the conclusion of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence may be legitimately drawn.
Law on this subject was discussed at length in case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 3950, more popularly referred to as the parliament attack case, wherein it was observed that mostly, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The Court noted with approval the observations in case of Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3030 that a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. The circumstances before, during and after the occurrence can be proved to decide about the complicity of the accused.
Insofar as accused no.1 is concerned, his involvement in the conspiracy of committing the offence under section 489A of the Act is writ large on the face of the record. It was he who had accompanied Kalpeshbhai accused no.2 for purchasing the colour printer which was used in printing fake currency notes. It was he along with Kalpesh and accused no.3 as well were intercepted travelling on a motorcycle carrying large amount of fake currency notes. Under the circumstances, so far as his conviction is concerned, as recorded by the learned Judge, we have no hesitation in upholding the same.
Insofar as accused no.3 is concerned, however, the issue stands on a slightly different footing. His role established on record is limited to the extent of being found carrying fake currency notes along with two other accused namely, accused no.1 and accused no.2. The prosecution has not established any link in acquiring any machinery or other equipments for printing such currency notes or of actually carrying out the printing. Unlike accused no.1, he cannot be involved in the offence of printing even with the aid of section 120B. Section 489A of the IPC, provides that whoever counterfeits, or knowingly performs any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency note or bank note, shall he punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. To our opinion, even on the basis of conspiracy theory, conviction of this accused for offence under section 489A was simply not justified. To reiterate, his involvement was established to the extent of carrying fake currency notes knowing the same to be fake which he received from the printing activity carried on by Kalpesh accused no.2 and others. His involvement therefore, in the conspiracy cannot be established even on the basis of his conduct and to other circumstances to which we have referred to above. Conviction under section 489B of the IPC, however, cannot be disturbed. Said section provides for punishment to any person selling buying or receiving or trafficking in or using as genuine, forged or counterfeiting currency notes, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeiting. In the present case, he was carrying large amount of counterfeit notes received from accused no.2. There is nothing on record to suggest that he had any reason to believe that such notes were genuine. The circumstances under which he was apprehended along with other accused carrying fake currency notes and in which one of accused was found involved in printing of such notes, would be circumstance enough to convince us that the accused had received such counterfeit currency notes knowing the same to be counterfeit.
Equally, the conviction under section 489C of the IPC against this accused must be affirmed. Said section provides for punishment for anyone who has in his possession of any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knowing or having reason to believe the same is forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine. All ingredients of this section namely, being in possession of counterfeit currency notes, knowing that the same were counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine, emerge from the record.
Insofar as section 489D is concerned, this accused again for the same reason as in section 489A cannot be held guilty either individually or with the aid of section 120B of the IPC. He was not shown to be either making or performing any part of the process of making, buying or sells or disposing of or in possession of any machinery, instrument or material for the purpose of being used for forging or counterfeiting any currency note or bank note.
In the result, conviction of accused no.1 Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra for offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D read with section 120B read with section 114 of the IPC is confirmed. Insofar as accused no.3 Mukesh Mohanbhai Vora is concerned, his conviction under section 489B and 489C of IPC is confirmed. Conviction under section 489A and 489D is set aside.
Coming to the sentencing part, we may recall that for offences punishable under sections 489A of the IPC both the accused were awarded life sentence. Since we have acquitted accused no.3 Mukesh Mohanbhai Vora for offence under section 489A, the sentence shall automatically fail. Insofar as accused no.1 is concerned, in our opinion, sentence of life imprisonment for offence under section 489A was harsh. He was stated to be aged about 20 years at the time of incident with no past history. No reasons have been elaborated by the learned Judge in awarding the maximum possible punishment. Being a first offender of young age at the relevant time and considering the punishment prescribed under the statute, his sentence is reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 489A of the IPC.
In the result, the appeals are disposed of with following directions :
Criminal Appeal No.1437/2008 is disposed of as abated.
Criminal Appeal No.1561/2008 is allowed in part. Conviction of accused - Mahendra alias Budhiya Dhirajlal Chapra for the offences punishable under sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D read with section 120B read with section 114 of the IPC is confirmed. Sentence for conviction under section 489A of IPC is reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. All other sentences including awarding of fine remain undisturbed. All sentences shall run concurrently.
Criminal Appeal No.1071/2008 is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused - Mukesh Mohanbhai Vora for the offences punishable under sections 489A and 489D read with section 120B of the IPC is set aside. He is however, held guilty of offences punishable under sections 489B and 489C of the IPC. Sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for these offences remain unchanged. Such sentences shall run concurrently.
All the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) raghu Page 20 of 20