Delhi District Court
St. vs Sangeeta Etc. on 10 January, 2010
St. Vs Sangeeta etc.
FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar
U/s 489B/489C IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02), DELHI
SC No. 223/1/10
State
Versus
1. Sangeeta
W/o Pintoo
R/o Vill. Laxmi Nagar, PO Jain Nagar
PS Lucknow Parsa, Lucknow, U.P.
2. Meenu @ Neelam
W/o Raj Kumar
R/o Manjula Nath, PS Maya Puri
Distt. Samasti Pur, Bihar.
Case arising out of :
FIR No. 34/09
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 489B/489C IPC
Date of FIR : 04.02.2009
Date of Institution : 09.06.2010
Date of Final Arguments : 06.01.2011
Judgment reserved on : 06.01.2011
Date of Judgment : 10.01.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Sangeeta wife of Pintoo and Meenu wife of SC No. 223/1/10 Page 1 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC Raj Kumar has been committed to the court of sessions to stand trial for the offence under section 489B and 489C IPC with the allegations that they have brought a forged one currency note of Rs.500/ and two currency notes of Rs.1000/ knowing the same to be forged/counterfeit.
2. Factual Matrix : The case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2009 at about 12:00 Noon, one call was received at police station Uttam Nagar and endorsement made through DD No.51A Ex.PW2/C which was given to PW7 ASI Zile Singh. He along with PW4 HC Hari Kishan went at Shop No.432, Jain Road, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar where Dheeraj Bhardwaj and Tilak Raj met them. Two ladies were also present there. Tilak Raj told that one lady namely Meenu gave him a fake currency note of Rs.1000/ denomination and she purchased 1/2 Kg of Burfi from his shop and he had given an amount of Rs.940/ to her at his confectionery shop. Tilak Raj produced Rs.1000/ currency note. Dheeraj Bhardwaj produced one currency note of Rs.1000/ in denomination and one currency notes of Rs.500/. PW7 ASI Zile Singh recorded statement of Dheeraj Bhardwaj Ex.PW7/A. ASI Zile Singh made his endorsement on the same vide Ex.PW7/B and thereafter he along with HC Hari Kishan, both the accused ladies and SC No. 223/1/10 Page 2 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC Tilak Raj and Dheeraj Bhardwaj came at the police station. He gave tehrir to duty officer for getting the case registered. Both the accused persons were produced before the SHO. On 03.02.2009, Dheeraj Bhardwaj produced two currency notes of Rs.1000/ denomination and one currency note of Rs.500/ in denomination and the same were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. PW7 ASI Zile Singh had also taken one sweet box containing 1/2 Kg of Burfi and kept the same in a parcel and it was sealed with the seal of ZS and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. PW7 Zile Singh interrogated both the lady accused and recorded their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. Both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted by L/Ct. Sudesh. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sangeeta and Meenu are vide Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H. PW7 ASI Zile Singh also checked the currency notes himself through ultra violet light and prepared document Ex.PW7/C. The case property i.e. the fake currency note bearing no. 9BC6a85844, 7AC 312811 and 8BC 970438 are Ex.P1, P3 and P4. The sweet box is Ex.P2.
3. Charges against the accused persons : After completion of the investigation, the charge under section 489B and 489C IPC that they have got recovered the forged SC No. 223/1/10 Page 3 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC currency notes knowing the same to be forged and counterfeit and committed the offuence under section 489B and 489C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Material witnesses : In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined PW1 Tilak Raj who testified in his deposition that he is running a confectionery shop. On 02.03.2009 at about 8:00PM, one lady came at his shop and she asked for half kg of burfi and he gave the same to her. She gave him one currency note of Rs.1000/ and after deducting an amount of Rs.60/ for half kg burfi, he gave an amount of Rs.940/ to that lady. After some time, he suspected that the currency note is a fake currency note, he went in the market to search for that lady who gave the said fake currency note and found that, that lady and one more lady were present at the office of Dheeraj Bhardwaj situated on Jain road. He identified the lady who gave 1000 rupee currency note to him and he also identified the other lady who along with this lady was seen by him at the Office of Dheeraj Bhardwaj. Later on, he came to know that the name of the lady who gave the fake currency note of Rs.1000/ was Meenu. He stated before Dheeraj Bhardwaj regarding the aforesaid incident and he had also shown the fake currency note to Dheeraj Bhardwaj who SC No. 223/1/10 Page 4 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC also stated that this is a fake currency note. Dheeraj informed the Police at 100 number. Police Officials came at the spot and both the ladies were produced before the Police Officials. He had produced the fake currency note which was given to him by Meenu. Dheeraj Bhardwaj has also given one currency note of Rs.1000/ and one currency notes of Rs.500/ which were given to him by the accused persons.
In the cross examination on behalf of accused persons, PW1 Tilak Raj stated that he does not have any license to run confectionery shop. It is denied that he is doing the work of confectionery at the mercy of local Police Officers or that they can remove his shop at any time. He manufactured sweets myself. Dheeraj was known to him for the last 23 years. He does not know as to what business Dheeraj does. He does not know regarding the residence of Dheeraj but office of Dheeraj is situated at a distance of 1015 shops from his shop. When he came to know regarding the fake currency note, he closed his shop and went in the market. No nearby shopkeeper accompanied him at that time. He did not raise alarm. He cannot tell the duration of time till police officials remained at the office of Dheeraj. He remained at the shop for about 1520 minutes. Police Officials recorded his statement on the next day. He SC No. 223/1/10 Page 5 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC accompanied Dheeraj to the police station. Police officials also recorded statement of Dheeraj thereafter he did not go to the police station. Police officials never came at his shop to make inquiries and police officials did not make any inquiry from the nearby shopkeeper. It is denied that Dheeraj Bhardwaj teased and tried to molest Sangeeta and she objected for the same and the other lady Meenu came at the Police Station to rescue Sangeeta or that she was also made to sit at the Police Station and both the ladies have been falsely implicated at the instance of Dheeraj. It is denied that he is deposing falsely at the instance of Dheeraj Bhardwaj.
PW8 Dheeraj Sharma stated that on 3rd day of month and year 2009 at about 08:0008:30 PM, he was sitting on a chair outside his office situated at A2 Block, Gandhi Chowk, Uttam Nagar. One lady came there and asked for thousand rupees' change. His friend Sanjeev Sharma was also present who told that Rs.1000/ currency note seems to be fake currency note. He returned that currency note to that lady. After some time another lady came there and she asked for five hundred rupees' change, he also checked that five hundred rupee currency note and that also seems to him a fake currency note. He returned that note to that lady. In the meanwhile, his friend Sukhbir and Chhotey Lal came there and he stated both of them that just now SC No. 223/1/10 Page 6 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC two ladies had come with the fake currency note and he asked his friend to chase them. They chased both the ladies and after going to some distance from their office, those ladies purchased sweets from a confectioner from that road itself. Thereafter, these ladies roamed in the area and finally they reached at a shop of provision shop. One lady stopped at some distance from that provision shop and they other lady proceeded to that provision shop. The lady who stopped at some distance, 810 public persons approached her and at that time they all were having polythene in their hands, containing sugar, pulses etc. Immediately, they went to that provision shop and he apprehended that lady, present before the court and he asked that provision shop owner to check the currency note which had been given by that lady. On his asking, that shopkeeper checked the currency note of Rs.500/ denomination and after checking found the same is fake currency note. He asked his friends to apprehend other persons who were with the other lady but they all managed to run away. The other lady was also apprehended by his friends. Some of his friends informed the police at 100 number. PCR officials came at the spot. The confectioner and other shopkeeper were called at the spot and they produced both the accused lady before the police officials. The fake currency notes were given to the police officials. His statement was recorded by the police SC No. 223/1/10 Page 7 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC officials vide Ex.PW7/A. He also identified two currency notes of Rs.1000/ denomination and one currency note of Rs.500/ denomination and one half Kg. Burfi box was also identified by him. The sweet box is Ex.P2 and the currency notes are Ex.P1, P3 and P4.
In the cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, it is admitted that none of the currency notes bear his signatures. His statement was recorded in the police station at about 10:00PM. Sanjeev Sharma is the owner of the property dealer shop, investigating officer did not record his statement. It is admitted that he had stated in his statement that he was sitting outside the property dealer shop on a chair, confronted with Ex.PW7/A where it is not so recorded. PCR van came at the spot at about 09:00 PM and they remained at the spot for about ten minutes. He went to the police station in the same PCR Van. The distance between his shop and the shop of the confectioner is 500 metre away. He had given an amount of Rs.1500/ to the police official at the provision shop itself. Again said that confectioner shopwala given one fake currency note to the police official and Rs.1000/ fake currency notes was recovered for one accused lady from her purse. He does not know name of both the accused persons. It is admitted that property dealer shop is situated in a thickly populated area. The investigating officer did not record statement of SC No. 223/1/10 Page 8 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC any other person in his presence. It is denied that he teased and tried to molest accused Sangeeta or that when she objected for the same or that when the other accused namely Meenu went to police station to make a complaint, both the ladies were falsely implicated in the resent case with the connivance with the police officials. It is admitted that police officials used to visit at the property dealer shop. It is also denied that both the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. Formal Witness : PW2 HC Shiv Lal being duty officer on 09.02.2009 recorded the FIR on the basis of tehrir produced by ASI Zile Singh after making endorsement vide Ex.PW2/B. He also brought DD register containing DD No.51A vide Ex.PW2/C. PW3 Ct. Chand Vir deposed that on 04.02.2009, ASI Zile Singh deposited one sealed parcel and one sealed envelope vide entry no. 4242 vide Ex.PW3/A. On 25.03.2009, he sent one sealed envelope to FSL Rohini through Ct. Taufi vide RC No.148/21/09 vide Ex.PW3/B. On 30.04.2010, Ct. Mahabir Singh deposited one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of FSL.
PW4 HC Hari Kishan remained with the investigating officer and stated regarding the apprehension of the accused persons SC No. 223/1/10 Page 9 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC and seizure of the fake currency notes. He was declared hostile by Ld. APP for state. In the cross examination by Ld. APP for state he admitted that two currency notes of Rs.1000/ and Rs.500/ were produced by Dheeraj Bhardwaj and same were taken into possession vide Ex.PW2/A. It is also admitted one sweet box containing half kg of Burfi were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. The investigating officer interrogated both the lady accused in his presence and recorded their disclosure statements vide Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Sangeeta and Meenu are Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F, PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H respectively.
PW5 ASI Ranbir Singh got collected the FSL result from FSL Rohini. Investigation was already completed. He prepared the challan and same was submitted.
PW7 ASI Zile Singh is the investigating officer who conducted the investigation and prepared the documents during the course of investigation and stated regarding the investigation as stated in the preceding paras of the judgment.
PW9 Ct. Taufiq received one sealed parcel and deposited the same at FSL vide RC No. 148/21. The case property was not tampered with till it remained in his possession. SC No. 223/1/10 Page 10 of 17
St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC
6. Expert Witnesses : PW6 Deepa Verma, Asst. Director (Document) examined the fake currency notes on Rs.1000/ and Rs.500/ denomination and stated the same was opined to be counterfeit. The currency notes are marked X1, X2 and X3.
7. Statement of Accused Persons : In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons has denied the incriminating evidence as alleged by the prosecution. It is stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. It is also suggested during the course of cross examination of the witnesses, both the accused persons never gone to the property dealer's shop and had not given any fake currency note or that no fake currency was given to any other shopkeeper. It is also suggested that PW8 Dhiraj Sharma tried to molest her and her sister when tried to complaint to the police, the police implicated both of them in this false case.
8. Consideration : Having heard the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for state as well as also carefully gone through the material placed on record.
For the purpose of proving the offence under section 489B, SC No. 223/1/10 Page 11 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC the prosecution must prove :
(i) that the currencynote or banknote in question was forged or counterfeit.
(ii) that the accused sold to, or bought or received from, some person, or trafficked in, or used as genuine, such currencynote or banknote.
(iii) that when he did so he knew or had reason to believe that it was forged or counterfeit.
Where the accused is charged with using as genuine a forged note, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused was passing the note he knew that it was a forged one, and the mere possession of it by him does not place the burden on him to account for its possession and to prove his innocent possession thereof. Where the accused is found in possession of forged currency notes and he gives no explanation as to wherefrom he obtained the said forged currency notes, his conviction and sentence under section 489B and 420 is upheld as observed in case titled as Ponnuswamy 1995 Cri LJ 2658 (SC): 1995 AIR SCW 1788; Peer Mohammed 2004 Cri LJ 45 (Mad).
9. The prosecution would succeed not only when the evidence is placed on record to show that the accused had knowledge about the SC No. 223/1/10 Page 12 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC currency notes being forged or counterfeit notes, but it will also succeed if circumstances are brought on record, irresistibly and clearly leading to an inference that the accused had reason to believe that the currency notes found in his possession were forged or fake. The collateral circumstances, such as the bulk of the fake currency notes, the mixture of fake currency notes, the palming off such notes quickly and the fact that the accused, by no stretch of imagination could be said to be layman or an uneducated man, are sufficient to infer that the accused had reason to believe that the currency notes with him were fake or counterfeit.
In the present case, the accused persons were not given personally all the counterfeit currency notes i.e. Rs.1000/ and Rs.500/ currency notes to the police but PW8 Dhiraj Sharma alleged that one currency note of Rs.1000/ was being received from the confectioner shop and another counterfeit currency note was being received from the provisional store. As per the statement of PW1 Tilak Raj, Rs.500/ was given by one lady accused. None of the fake currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused or at their instance. Even though, the disclosure statement were recorded with the respect that fake currency notes were supplied to them by Khalid. Neither Khalid was interrogated nor any explanation was SC No. 223/1/10 Page 13 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC given by the investigating officer as to what has been done with respect to the investigation to the catch hold Khalild who had supplied the fake currency notes.
It is also revealed that one lady has come with Rs.1000/ currency note to purchase sweets to PW1 Tilak Raj, after deduction of Rs.60/, PW1 has returned Rs.940/ to the lady. The amount of Rs.940/ was not recovered from that lady either by the complainant or by any other public witness nor any explanation was given by the investigating officer. Apart from the shop of PW1 Tilak Raj and PW 8 Dhiraj Sharma, there were other shopkeepers, but no shopkeeper was joined in the investigation. Even though Sanjeev Sharma is the friend of PW8 Dhiraj Sharma who was present at the shop and event was alleged to have been taken place in his presence but he is not cited as witness even though there is no explanation given by the investigating officer to this effect. The provisional shopkeeper to whom the Rs.500/ was given is also not cited as a witness. According to the deposition of PW8 Dhiraj Sharma, only PCR van came at the spot at the time of apprehension of both the ladies in the market. No police official from the concerned police station or the investigating officer was come there. PW1 Tilak Raj went to the police station on the next day. He was not examined on the same day SC No. 223/1/10 Page 14 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC when the currency notes were handed over to Dhiraj Sharma. Tilak Raj in his deposition stated that the lady came first at his shop and given amount of Rs.1000/ fake currency note and then went to the shop of PW8 Dhiraj Sharma. The police officials met in the office of Dhiraj Sharma and accompanied to Dhiraj Sharma to the police station. The police official reached at the shop of Dhiraj Sharma at about 08:30 PM. PW8 Dhiraj Sharma never stated that he had handed over the fake currency note of Rs.1000/ to the police. He also admitted in the cross examination that the police officials used to visit at the property dealer shop. The PCR Van came at the shop at about 09:00 PM and they remained at the shop for about 10 minutes. The depositions made by these witnesses made a lot of improvements and contradictions which does not corroborate and inspire confidence.
From the deposition of the PW8 Dhiraj Sharma, it is also revealed that his friend Sanjeev was also present at the time when one lady asked about the change of Rs.1000/ and another lady came along with Rs.500/ currency note for change, on both the occasions, Sanjeev Sharma was present and in his presence PW8 Dhirraj Sharma complainant had received the currency notes from both the ladies but the PW Sanjeev has not been interrogated nor any explanation was given by the investigating officer as to why he has not been examined SC No. 223/1/10 Page 15 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC Sanjeev.
PW8 Dhiraj Sharma in his cross examination stated that the statement of Sanjeev Shamra was not recorded by the investigating officer nor he was cited as prosecution witness. PW6 Deepa Verma proved that all the three currency notes examined by her were found to be counterfeit and fake. PW1 Tilak Raj owner of the confectioner shop stated that he gave half Kg of burfi in lieu of receiving of Rs.1000/ currency notes but in the court, at the time of his examination in chief, he wrongly identified the accused Sangeeta as Meenu.
10. From the material on record and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, there is no evidence on record that the currency notes were found to be recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Fake currency notes used as genuine for the purpose of purchasing the burfi or for change or narrated the same as genuine currency. Mere possession of counterfeit currency note is not sufficient to convict a person for the offence under section 489B/489C, unless the prosecution has not been proved that the accused persons have the requisite knowledge or intention. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record leading to the seizure of the forged currency notes. Manner in which the accused persons came SC No. 223/1/10 Page 16 of 17 St. Vs Sangeeta etc. FIR No.34/09, PS: Uttam Nagar U/s 489B/489C IPC into possession of those currency notes are important factors to be considered.
If the alleged case property is found in possession of the accused persons, the burden shifted upon the accused persons to prove their innocence. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused persons were passing the notes, they know that the notes were not forged one. The prosecution failed to prove that the present accused persons are the real culprits who were passing the fake currency notes to the owner of the confectionery shop or to the complainant Dhiraj. As there are several flaw and lacuna in the prosecution case to prove the charges against the accused persons.
In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons as the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence, they does not rerelate with the charges. Hence, the accused Sangeeta W/o Pintoo and Meenu @ Neelam W/o Raj Kumar are hereby acquitted from the charged leveled against them.
Dictated & Announced (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM)
in the open court ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
today i.e. on 10.01.2011 (WEST02):DELHI
SC No. 223/1/10 Page 17 of 17