Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002
Date of decision: 1st March, 2011
Rajwant Singh
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been filed by Rajwant Singh son of Subeg Singh. He, along with Ishwar son of Bhagtu Balmiki, was named as accused in case FIR No.104 dated 06.05.1999 registered at Police Station Samana under Sections 489-A, 489-C, 420/511 IPC. They were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, which vide its judgment dated 2nd April, 2002, held them guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 489-A and 489-C IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under each head and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Mr. B.S. Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State, has stated that Ishwar had completed Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 2 his sentence and he was released from jail after he was given benefit of remissions.
Case of the prosecution emerges in the statement Ex.PA made by Telu Ram PW-1, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was registered. Telu Ram stated that he was running a sanitary spare-parts shop at Samana. On 6th May, 1999, Dev Raj son of Budh Ram, resident of Samana had also come to his shop to discuss some domestic affairs. When both of them were talking to each other, at about 4.00 p.m. Rajwant Singh son of Subeg Singh accompanied by Ishwar son of Bhagtu Balmiki arrived at the shop of Telu Ram. Rajwant Singh used to purchase articles from the shop of complainant. At that time, Rajwant Singh purchased goods worth Rs.300/- and the complainant issued a receipt dated 6th May, 1999. Rajwant Singh in lieu of purchase of articles, gave two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and two notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each to the complainant. At that time, Rajwant Singh told him to examine the notes as to whether the same were genuine or fake. Telu Ram examined the notes and stated them to be genuine. On suspicion, the complainant examined serial numbers of the notes and found that both the currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were having a similar serial number i.e. 4MC06947. Both the currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination were also having a similar serial number i.e. 2FG59087. At that time, Rajwant Singh and Ishwar disclosed to the complainant that both of them were engaged in making of fake currency notes and in case Rs.40,000/- are given to them, they would part with fake currency notes worth Rs.1,20,000/- of the denomination of Rs.50/- and Rs.100/-. They stated that thereafter, these notes can be circulated by the complainant. The complainant told them to wait, as he would arrange for the money. Leaving the accused at the shop, the complainant approached the police, which on arrival had taken two currency notes of Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 3 Rs.50/- denomination each and two notes of Rs.100/- each into possession.
The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused.
The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala on 31st August, 1999 charged the appellant. The first charge stated that on 6th May, 1999 at about 4.00 p.m. in the area of Samana two currency notes of Rs.50/- each and two currency notes of Rs.100/- each having similar numbers were found in possession of the appellant and thus he committed an offence punishable under Section 489-A IPC. The second charge stated that the appellant had prepared counterfeit currency notes, and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 489-C IPC. Lastly, the appellant was charged that on 6th May, 1999 at about 4.00 p.m. he along with his co-accused attempted to cheat Telu Ram by dishonestly inducing him to deliver Rs.40,000/- and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC.
Complainant Telu Ram appeared as PW-1 and reiterated as to what was stated in his statement Ex.PA. His testimony was duly corroborated by PW-3 Dev Raj.
What is material to be noticed in this case is the testimony of Ashwani Chhabra, Head Cashier of Punjab National Bank, Lalru Branch PW-2. It will be apposite here to reproduce the entire testimony of this witness, which reads as under:
"I was posted in Punjab National Bank, Malkana Patti, Samana on 15.6.1999. Police has shown to me Ex.P1 to P4. These are the original currency notes but the last digit number has been erased. My statement was recorded.
XXXXmn According to me all the four currency notes are genuine as in all the four notes there is a silver wire over which RBI India is written. Secondly around the portrait of Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 4 Mahatma Gandhi RBI 100 is written, which can be seen with a magnified glass. All the currency notes issued by Reserve Bank of India contain 6 digits, whereas in the four currency notes there are 5 digits and the last digit has been erased. When we lift the currency notes of 100 denomination with horizontal angle figure 100 is written and on the currency note of Rs.50/-, 50 is written."
HC Major Singh PW-4 stated that on 8th May, 1999, he was posted at Police Station City Samana. The appellant made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed four notes of Rs.50/- denomination each and three notes of Rs.100/- denomination each in the iron box lying in the residential house and in pursuance of this disclosure statement, the notes were recovered in presence of this witness.
SI Rajesh Kumar PW-5 investigated the case and deposed regarding various facets of the investigation.
Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded innocence.
In defence, Constable Dharam Pal was examined as DW-1 to say that there is no entry made in the DDR register regarding disclosure statement suffered by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The trial Court held that even though Ashwani Chhabra PW-2 has stated that the currency notes were genuine, the very fact that the last digit of the serial numbers has been erased proves the currency notes to be counterfeit. The trial Court has not recorded conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC. Therefore, the story that the appellant has told Telu Ram that in case he parts with Rs.40,000/-, they would hand him over fake currency worth Rs.1,20,000/- has not been accepted by the trial Court. In the Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 5 present case, genuine currency notes have been tampered with. The last digit of their serial number has been erased. The notes belonged to the same series and by erasing the last digit of their serial number, whether these notes can be said to be counterfeit or not, is an issue on which this Court has to ponder. Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'counterfeit' and the same reads as under:
"28. 'Counterfeit' A person is said to 'counterfeit' who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing. it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised."
A Single Bench of this Court, in 'Bachan Singh and another v. State of Punjab' 1982 Cri.L.J. 32, observed as under:
"9. Sections 489-A to 489-D were originally not in the Indian Penal Code but were introduced later by the Currency Notes Forgery Act (XII of 1899). Since in the aforesaid Sections the word 'counterfeit' has been employed it is futile to confine the definition of the word 'counterfeit' given in Section 28 of the Indian Penal Code to coins alone. P.W.2 Sh.Darshan Kumar Ahluwalia too wishes to confine counterfeiting to coins but that impression of his is plainly wrong. But can 'made-up notes' be termed as 'counterfeit notes' is one question and the other one is can 'made up notes' be 'forged notes'. Now counterfeiting is a process by which one thing is caused to resemble another thing. It presupposes that there is an original. The act of counterfeiting is the effect of producing another so as to resemble the original, and the object of which is to practice deception, or knowing it likely that the deception will thereby be practiced. In a made-up note, both parts thereof are original portions of the genuine notes. Could two different portions of two genuine currency notes by putting them together amount to counterfeiting is a subtle question which poses to be answered. If it is taken that by joining two Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 6 different pieces of two genuine currency notes, the end product in the shape of a made-up note would still be a genuine currency note then it would not be counterfeiting. But if is taken that by joining two different portions of two different currency notes would turn out the end-product to be a note which is made to resemble the genuine currency note (represented by one part or the other part) then obviously a new thing has come into being so as to resemble another. The object of placing together two different pieces of two genuine currency notes as a made-up note presupposes to create a new legal tender which it otherwise is not. The mere fact that such notes are changeable at face value from the Reserve Bank of India it being its issuing authority as the promissory thereof, and giving the bearer the sum represented in the note torn is of no consequence. But in order to retain the character of a currency note it has to maintain its original character and any act practiced to make it resemble like if retaining its original character, would to my mind be counterfeiting so as to come within the mischief of Sections 489-A to 489-D, Indian Penal Code. There can be no quarrel with the opinion expressed by Sh.Darshan Kumar Ahluwalia, P.W.2, that a made-up note is not a forged note since no mechanical process is involved. Since no process as is known to Sections 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code, is involved in making a made-up note, the allegation of forgery to my mind is completely out in the process."
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
11. With regard to the case of Bachan Singh it is to be noted that he was found in possession of 13 counterfeit ten rupee notes. He is an iron-smith by profession and barely literate. How could he have the knowledge or reason to believe the same to be counterfeit is one part but the other important part is whether he intended to use the same as genuine or that they may be used as genuine has further to be proved by the prosecution. It was held in Bur Singh v. the Crown, ((1931) 32 Cri. LJ 351) (Lah) (supra), that mere possession of a forged note is not an offence under the Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 7 Indian Penal Code and in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 489-C, Indian Penal Code, it was not only necessary to prove that the accused was in possession of forged notes but it should further be established that:
(a) at the time of his possession he knew the notes to be forged or had the reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit; and
(b) he intended to use the same as genuine. No further collateral circumstances in the case have been brought forth such as the accused had palmed off such notes before, or that he was in possession of such and similar notes in such large numbers, that his possession for any other purpose was inexplicable."
It has come in the evidence of Ashwani Chhabra PW-2 that the notes were genuine and only the last digit of their serial numbers has been erased. It has not come in the evidence as to who has erased this digit. As to whether the accused knew that the last digit has been erased, is another question which this Court has to consider in the light of observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 'Umashanker v. State of Chhattisgarh' 2001 Cri.L.J. 4696. Similarly, in 'M.Mammutti v. State of Karanataka' 1979 Cri.L.J. 1383, it was held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that where mere a look at the currency notes would not convince anybody that they are counterfeit, presumption that the accused knew that the notes in his possession were counterfeit, cannot be drawn.
In the present case, the accused had gone to purchase articles. He had handed over the notes to the shopkeeper and had asked him to find out whether they were genuine or not. The shopkeeper also believed the notes to be genuine. It was later-on, after comparison it was found that two currency notes were carrying a similar serial number. As stated earlier, the story qua offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC has not been believed by the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.866-SB of 2002 8
In 'Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana' 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 621, relying upon the definition of 'counterfeit' under Section 28 of IPC, this Court has also held that mere change of number with the ink will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 489-C IPC. In the present case, it is only the last digit of serial numbers of notes, which has been erased. It cannot be said that the accused knew that they were in possession of the counterfeit currency, or they knew or believed the notes to be forged or counterfeit. Thus, as a matter of abundant caution, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
Hence, the present appeal is accepted. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 1, 2011 rps