Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re:- Sahangir Molla @ Rana vs The State Of Punjab Reported In (2012) I on 29 June, 2016
Author: Ashim Kumar Roy
Bench: Ashim Kumar Roy
1 90 29.6.2016
p.d. CRAN No.563 of 2016
in
CRA No.11 of 2016
In re:- Sahangir Molla @ Rana ... Appellant.
Re: An Application for suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. being CRAN No. 563/2016 affirmed on 11.2.2016 in connection with Sessions Trial No.05(06)/2014 corresponds to Sessions Case No.137 of 2014. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Mr. Rajiv Lochan Chakraborty, Mr. Debapratim Guha, Mr. Priyanjit Kundu ... For the appellant.
Mr. Manjit Singh, P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das .... For the State.
In a sessions trial, the appellant on being convicted under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 5 years respectively and to pay fines with default clauses, has approached this Court for suspension of sentence.
Against such order, a statutory appeal was filed and after the same being admitted, the appellant has approached this Court for suspension of sentence and his release on bail.
It is the case of the prosecution that at the Hotel, when the appellant against the purchase of food, tendered one Indian Currency Note of denomination of Rs.500/-, it was found that the same was fake. Thereafter, the police was called 2 and when the appellant was searched, from his possession, 29 pieces of similar fake Indian Currency Notes were also recovered.
P.W.6 is the witness, who attached to the Government Printing Press, proved that the Notes were fake. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.2 and P.W.7, who are the Manager and the Cook respectively of that Hotel.
The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the fake Indian Currency Notes, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant, were planted. In this regard, he draws our attention to the evidence of those two seizure witnesses and points out that during their cross-examination, they disclosed that before the incident, there was some altercation between the police people and the present appellant. However, he has not been able to satisfy us that the evidence of those two witnesses, which implicated the appellant in tendering the fake Indian Currency Note against purchase of food or recovery of such large number of fake Indian Currency Notes from his possession, has been diluted during the cross-examination. His contention that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be accepted to be Expert opinion, also has not appealed to us because it is proved by his evidence that he was 3 the Manager of the Government Printing Press and working there for a long period of 18 years.
Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment as also the depositions of the witnesses produced before us.
Now, going through the impugned judgment and considering the findings on which the order of conviction is based and the grounds on which the same is under challenge, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence being CRAN No.563 of 2016 stands rejected.
We, however, make it clear that the observation made hereinabove, must not be construed as to our opinion on the merits of the case and the same shall have no bearing at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.
Now, considering the number of fake Indian Currency Notes recovered from the possession of the present appellant and having regard to the fact that the said Notes being recovered while the same were being trafficked or used, in our opinion, the sentence imposed upon the appellant, is not at all adequate. Accordingly, in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Jaspal Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police
-Vs- the State of Punjab reported in (2012) I, S.C.C. (Crl.) 1 4 and in exercise of power conferred under Section 386 ( e ) Cr.P.C., the appellant be called upon to show cause why the sentence imposed upon him should not be enhanced. In this regard, notices be issued and the same be served upon the appellant through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Parganas and the same be made returnable four weeks hence and shall be heard together with this appeal.
It appears that already LCR have been received by the department concerned.
Accordingly, we direct the office to prepare the requisite number of paper books within two months from this date and as soon as the preparation of paper books is complete and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be placed for hearing before the appropriate Bench.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.
(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)