Karnataka High Court
Mr R M Nataraj vs State By Channagiri Police Davangere ... on 29 January, 2013
1 Crl.As 1306 C/w
1307 & 1856/06
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1306 OF 2006
C/w.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1307 OF 2006
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1856 OF 2006
In Crl.A. 1306/06:
BETWEEN:
R.M. Nataraj,
S/o. D.B. Murthy,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at+ 5th Cross,
Vidyanagar,
Davanagere. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. Naushad Pasha & B.G. Ranganath, Advs.
Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, Adv. - Amicus Curiae]
AND:
State by Channagiri Police,
Davanagere District. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Satish R. Girji, HCGP.]
***
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
against the Judgment dt.24.6.06 in S.C.No.137/05
on the file of the Addl. S.J., FTC., Davanagere -
2 Crl.As 1306 C/w
1307 & 1856/06
convicting the appellants/accused No.2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 years and shall pay
fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 489B of IPC. In case of default to pay
the fine amount, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one year and
further sentencing him to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year for the
offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC. The
sentences of imprisonment for all the offence in
respect of each of the accused as stated above
shall run concurrently.
In Crl.A. 1307/06:
BETWEEN:
K.R. Shankrappa,
S/o. Ramanna,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Sanjeevini Nagar,
Shiva Kumar Extension,
Davanagere. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. Naushad Pasha & B.G. Ranganath, Advs.
Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna, Adv. - Amicus Curiae]
AND:
State by Channagiri Police,
Davanagere District. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Satish R. Girji, HCGP.]
* * *
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
against the Judgment dt.24.6.06 in S.C. No.137/05
3 Crl.As 1306 C/w
1307 & 1856/06
on the file of the Addl. S.J., FTC., Davanagere -
convicting the appellant/accused No.3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 489-A to 489-D
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 9 years in respect of
each offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B,
489D of IPC. He shall also pay fine of Rs.5000/-
in respect of each of the said offences, in
default, to pay such fine he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of one year in
respect of each of the said offences. The accused
No.3 further in respect of the offence punishable
under Section 489C of IPC shall pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default, to pay such fine to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year. the sentences of imprisonment for all the
offences in respect of each of the accused as
stated above shall run concurrently.
In Crl.A. 1856/06:
BETWEEN:
Vasantha Patil @ H.V. Patil,
S/o. Veeravhadrappa,
29 years,
R/o. Kamsagara Village,
Channagiri Taluk. ... APPELLANT/S
[By Sri. Brijesh Patil & Sri. P.N. Hegde, Advs.
for M/s. Basava Prabhu S. Patil & Assocs.]
AND:
State by Channagiri Police,
Rep. by S.P.P.,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore. ... RESPONDENT/S
[By Sri. Satish R. Girji, HCGP.]
4 Crl.As 1306 C/w
1307 & 1856/06
This Crl.A. is filed u/Section 374 Cr.P.C.
against the Judgment dt.24.6.06 passed by the
Addl. S.J., FTC., Davanagere, in S.C. No.137/05 -
convicting the appellant/accused No.1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C
of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay
fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 489B of IPC, in case of default to pay the
fine amount shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a further period of one year and further
sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year for the offence punishable
under Section 489C of IPC. The sentences of
imprisonment for all the offence shall run
concurrently.
These Crl.As. coming on for Further Hearing,
this day the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
In these appeals, the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence ordered by the Fast Track Court, Davangere, for the offences punishable under Sections 489(A to D) IPC.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these appeals are as under:
5 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 The parties are referred to as they were referred in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
The appellant in Crl.A. No.1856/06 is accused No.1, whereas the appellant in Crl.A. No.1306 and 1307/06 are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively. It is alleged that on 30.07.2005 at about 11.15 a.m., P.W.2-Thippeswamy, PSI., Basavapatna Police Station received a credible information that some persons at Kamsagara village are circulating counterfeit notes in a Maruti Omni van. Thereafter, he accompanied by P.W.1, J.C. Nagaraj, Police Constable, P.W.12-R.F.Desai, a Probationary PSI., with the mahazar witnesses i.e., P.W.13- Basappa and P.W.14-M.P.Manjunath proceeded in his jeep to the Kamsagara village and while he was watching from a distance, he found accused Nos.1 and 2 in a Maruti Omni van, circulating the counterfeit notes. He apprehended them. On search of accused Nos.1 and 2, he found 10 notes of 6 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 Rs.100-00 denominations in the possession of accused No.1 and 20 notes of Rs.100-00 denominations in the possession of accused No.2 and they were counterfeit notes. The said notes were seized under mahazar-Ex.P1 and he brought accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Police Station and registered a suo motu complaint-Ex.P58 in Crime No.113/2005 at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day. After registration of the complaint, he sent the complaint Ex.P58 and FIR-Ex.P59 through P.W.5 to the Magistrate and informed about this incident to the superiors and after arrival of P.W.16-Madan A. Goankar, CPI., he entrusted the investigation to him. P.W.16-Madan A. Goankar, CPI., continued the investigation. On interrogation of accused Nos.1 and 2, they disclosed the names of accused Nos.3 and 4 and after recording their statements, accused Nos.1 and 2 led the Police and the mahazar witnesses to the place of accused Nos.3 and 4, in Saraswathinagar, Davangere. The said persons were 7 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 in the first floor of the building and it was latched from inside. Accused No.1 called the persons who were inside by knocking the door, then accused No.3 opened the door. Both accused Nos.3 and 4 were in the said room. There were computers and other materials in addition to the counterfeit notes of Rs.100-00, Rs.20-00 and Rs.10-00 denominations and some notes were under the process of printing and some notes were printed on front portion whereas some notes were printed on the back portion. He seized M.Os.3 to 36 and other counterfeit notes-Exs.P34 to 53. All these items were seized under mahazar-Ex.P33. He recorded the statements of accused Nos.3 and 4. On 31.07.2005 he recorded the statements of the witnesses and apprehended accused No.6, recorded his voluntary statement and seized the notes of Rs.100-00 denomination [Ex.P61] under the mahazar- Ex.P60 and sent the report-Ex.P63 to the Basavapatna Police Station for further 8 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 investigation. He sent the Property Form of the seized articles. On interrogation of the accused No.6 he revealed the name of accused No.5 and after arresting accused No.5 he seized 2 notes Exs.P55 and 56 under mahazar-Ex.P54. He recorded the statement of the other witnesses. He sent the seized notes for expert's opinion to the RBI Note Printing Division and obtained the khata extract of the premises of accused No.3 as per Exs.P68 and
69. On completion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet. After receiving the RBI report, he included the same in the charge-sheet.
During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and in their evidence got marked the documents Exs.P1 to 72 and M.Os.1 to 36. The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have taken the defence of total denial. No defence evidence was led. However, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 respectively.
9 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted accused Nos.4 to 6 and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and (C) IPC., whereas accused No.3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 489(A to D).
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were ordered to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) IPC., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year and also were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000-00 each for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) IPC., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Accused No.3 was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 for each of the said offences, in 10 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one year for the offence punishable under Sections 489(A), (B) and (D) IPC. Accused No.3 is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.10,000-00, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been filed.
3. I have heard learned counsel, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The points that arise for my consideration are:
"a) Whether accused Nos.1 and 2
(appellants in Crl.A.Nos.1856 & 1306/2006) have made out any grounds to warrant interference in their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Section 489B and C of IPC?
11 Crl.As 1306 C/w
1307 & 1856/06
b) Whether accused No.3
(appellant in Crl.A.No.1307/2006) has
made out any grounds to warrant
interference in his conviction and
sentence for the offences punishable
under Section 489 A to D of IPC?"
5. It is the submission of learned Amicus Curiae and counsel for the appellants that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, they contend that the appellants have been falsely implicated and hence seeks to set aside the judgment and order. They would further contend that there is material inconsistency in relation to the place where accused Nos.1 and 2 were found and on this count itself accused Nos.1 and 2 could have been acquitted. It is also their submission that except the interested version of official witnesses no other material is placed on record and that the appellants have no knowledge about the notes being counterfeit notes. They would further contend that the investigating 12 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 officer has not recorded the voluntary statement of accused and the statement recorded have not been proved by adopting appropriate procedure and hence, the evidence relating to discrepancy and recovery cannot be accepted. They would also contend that except the evidence of PW11 - Mohan and the official witnesses, the prosecution has not produced any other evidence and as the counterfeit notes said to be in possession of accused Nos.1 and 2, there is material discrepancy about the serial numbers over the notes, they contend that the Trial Court ought to have granted an order of acquittal. On these grounds, they have sought for setting aside the conviction and sentence.
6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the material placed on record by the prosecution is in abundance and the Trial Court was justified in awarding conviction and sentence.
13 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06
7. The scrutiny of material placed on record would reveal that the mahazar witnesses for Exs.P1, P33, P54 and P60 have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, it is only the evidence of police and that of PW11 - Mohan which will have to be looked into to sustain the impugned judgment and order. PW1 - J C Nagaraj, the Police Constable, PW2 - A D Thippeswamy, the Police Sub Inspector and PW12 - R F Desai, the Police Sub Inspector are the police officials who went in a jeep after receipt of credible information about the circulation and possession of counterfeit notes and it is their consistent version that after the receipt of information, PW2
- the Police Sub Inspector secured the mahazar witnesses and went to Kamasagara village and while they were searching, they found Maruthi Van bearing registration No.KA-01-P-2834. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the said van and when PW2 - PSI questioned them, they revealed their names and 14 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 on search, 10 notes of 100 denominations were found with accused No.1 and all these notes were bearing the same number as HL6 385124. Accused No.1 had a mobile - MO1. The counterfeit notes which were in the possession of accused No.1 are marked at Exs.P2 to P11. They made search of accused No.2 with whom they found 20 notes of 100 denominations and the notes which were in possession of accused No.2 are marked at Exs.P12 to P31. Those notes were seized under mahazar Ex.P1. PW13 - Basappa and PW14 - Manjunath are the mahazar witnesses who have turned hostile. So far as receipt of credible information by PW2 and accused Nos.1 and 2 having been found in Maruthi Van and the seizure of aforesaid notes and the mobile from accused Nos.1 and 2, the evidence to this extent is consistent and cogent.
8. The only inconsistency in the evidence of these witnesses as stated by PW1 is Maruthi Van was stationed in front of the house of one 15 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 Rudrappa whereas other inconsistency is the vehicle was in a moving condition and that the police forced accused Nos.1 and 2 to stop the vehicle and that the said vehicle was stopped on the road in front of the house of accused No.1. It is relevant to note that the incident took place on 30.07.2005 and the evidence was recorded in the month of April, 2006. The discrepancy is due to the lapse of time and is natural. That apart, the discrepancy which has been brought on record in the evidence of aforesaid witnesses is not material for the reason that it is consistent version of the police officials - PWs.1, 2 and 12 that accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in Maruthi Van and they were in possession of counterfeit notes.
9. It is after the seizure mahazar - Ex.P1 that PW2 registered a suo motu complaint in Cr.No.113/2005. The complaint is produced at Ex.P58 whereas FIR is at Ex.P59. There appears to be some discrepancy in FIR - Ex.P59. Though PW2 16 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 states in his evidence that he registered the crime soon after he returned after raid, Ex.P59 - FIR reveals that the occurrence of offence is mentioned from 30.07.2005 to 30.07.2005 in Col.No.3 of FIR and in Col.No.3(b) the information received is stated as on 31.07.2005 at 13.30 hours. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate who has received this information has made an endorsement that he received FIR in three enclosures at 12.45 p.m. on 31.07.2005 through PC 336 and this Police Constable is examined as PW5 by the prosecution. As per the evidence of prosecution, the credible information has been received at about 11.30 a.m. on 30.07.2005 and the crime came to be registered at 2.30 p.m. and the FIR was entrusted to PW5 at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. It is relevant to note that PW5 - Honnur Sab in his evidence states that FIR in this crime was entrusted to him on 30.07.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. and on the same day in the night at 12.45 a.m. he 17 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 approached the Magistrate and submitted the FIR. On this aspect of the matter, there is no cross examination of PW5 and his evidence goes unchallenged. So if the evidence of PW5 is considered, he has stated that he has handed over FIR to the learned Magistrate at 12.45 in the mid night of 30.07.2005 i.e., at about 00.45 hours, but the learned Magistrate appears to have committed a mistake in mentioning the time as 12.45 p.m. instead of mentioning at 00.45 a.m. This mistake by the learned Magistrate is apparent for the reason that time that has been stated by PW5 is not disputed by the defence in the cross examination. Therefore, this mistake which have been committed in mentioning the time in FIR will have to be ignored for the reason there is abundant evidence on record that the crime was registered prior to 5.00 p.m. on 30.07.2005 and the FIR was received by the Magistrate in the night at 00.45 hours on 31.07.2005. The place of 18 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 incident and the residence of Magistrate are at a distance of about 30 to 35 kms and PW5 having taken the FIR at 5.00 p.m. has gone to Channagiri and submitted the FIR in the midnight. So taking into consideration this aspect, I do not find that there is abnormal delay in receipt of FIR by the Magistrate. The mistake brought to the notice of Court in the FIR Ex.P59 appears to be on over sight and hence, it has to be ignored.
10. PW16 - Madan A Gaonkaor is the CPI who continued the investigation after he was informed of this incident by PW2 - PSI at 1.30 p.m. On the day after arrival to the police station, he verified the investigation made till then and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2. On interrogation, the accused revealed the names of accused Nos.3 and 4 and circulation of counterfeit notes by them. Accused No.1 is said to have informed PW16 CPI that he would lead the police to the place where accused No.3 stays. His statement was 19 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 recorded but anyhow it is not marked in the evidence. But the evidence of PW16 - CPI and other witnesses reveal that accused Nos.1 and 2 led the police and the mahazar witnesses to the place where accused No.3 was staying i.e., at Davangere to the house of PW11 - Mohan and in the first floor a room was latched from inside. Accused No.1 knocked the door and it was opened by accused No.3 wherein accused No.4 was also present.
11. In the said room, the police and the mahazar witness found MO.3-Monitor, MO.4-Key board, MO.5-Scanner, MO.6-CPU (Scorpio), MO.7- Laser colour printer, MO.8-T.V. Stand, MO.9-Spike Board, MO.10-Adoptor, MO.11-Mouse, MO.15-Screen print frame, MO.17-Plastic bottle containing liquor, MO.18- plastic bottle containing orange colour ink, MO.24-punching machine, MO.25- colourless ink, in addition to many other instruments and also MO.28-five bundles of only 20 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 front side printed currency notes each of the value of Rs.100/- and MO.29-five bundles of back side printed currency notes each of the value of Rs.100/- and there were 37 thin sheets over which there were one side printed currency notes of the value of Rs.100/-, in each sheets there were three such notes and also MOs.31 to 36.
12. The room was found to be in possession of accused No.3, as he had taken the premises on rent from PW.11 Mohan. The materials which were seized in the room in possession of accused No.3 would clearly indicate that the instruments were used for the purpose of printing notes and there were numerous 1/2 printed and many notes printed on both the sides. Thus, all notes and the material objects seized under the mahazar Ex.P54. Though the mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, PW11 the owner of the premises was present at the place and by any stretch of imagination it could not be said that the police 21 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 officer was in a position to plant all these materials by obtaining them elsewhere. So, the evidence of the police official and the evidence of PW11 itself is sufficient to prove that accused No.3 was printing the counterfeit notes in the said premises. After the seizure of these counterfeit notes and other instruments, the seized notes were sent to PW15 and after examination he has stated that the notes are the counterfeit notes. PW15 has assigned the reasons on the basis of which he states that the notes which were seized under the mahazar referred to supra were counterfeit notes.
13. Though it is contended that the covers were opened at the time when they were found in the open Court while recording the evidence, it cannot be said that there was any tampering of these notes by the Investigating Agency for the sole reason that PW15- the RBI Officer has stated that he has received the notes and other articles 22 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 in sealed covers and after examination of the counterfeit notes, he sealed them in a cover and sent it to the Court. It may be that after the covers were sent to the Court, they were opened, it cannot be said that it was the Investigating Agency which has tampered these covers in which the notes were kept and were seized.
There is minor discrepancy in relation to the notes which were seized from the accused i.e. the notes Exs.P2 to P11. PW2 states in his evidence that all these notes which were seized from accused No.1 bears NO.HLG 385124, whereas, PW1 in the cross-examination states that the 10 notes in possession of accused No.1 were bearing No.HL6 385124 and PW15 states in his evidence that the serial numbers of the notes commenced with the letters HL6.
14. The perusal of the seizure mahazar Ex.P1 would reveal the numbers as HLG 385124 and it 23 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 appears that the word 'G' is said to look like 'No.6' and there is minor mistake in mentioning the word 'G' in the mahazar Ex.P1. So, the perusal of evidence of PW2 and the mahazar Ex.P1 it could be said that it is a stray admission of PW1 in the cross-examination and therefore merely on this ground the seizure cannot be said to be illegal. 15. It is contended that accused No.1 and 2 had no knowledge that the notes in their possession were counterfeit notes. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel and the amicus curiae that in the absence of any such knowledge, the accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 489(B) and (C) of IPC.
16. A perusal of Section 489(C) IPC reveals that the accused must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were either forged or counterfeit notes. It is relevant to note that, 24 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 the notes in possession of accused No.1 at Exs.P2 to P11 bear the same serial number and this itself is sufficient prima facie to know that the notes were counterfeit notes. Further more, accused No.1 was found with accused No.2 in Maruti Van and 20 notes of Rs.100/- denominations were seized from accused No.2. So, two persons in custody of counterfeit notes at the same time and at the same place would indicate that they had the knowledge that the notes in their possession were counterfeit notes. Therefore, it could be inferred from circumstances that the accused Nos.1 and 2 possessed the notes knowingly that they were counterfeit notes.
17. The prosecution has to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were using the counterfeit notes as genuine at the time when the incident took place, but the perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 12 would indicate that they were found in possession of the notes, but were not 25 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 circulating the notes at the time when they were apprehended by the police. Hence, in my opinion the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court for the offence under Section 489(B) IPC appears to be erroneous and illegal.
18. There is ample of material on record to hold that they were in possession of counterfeit notes and hence their conviction for the offence under Section 489(C) is just and proper.
19. From the material objects seized from the premises in which accused No.3 was found, would clearly establish that accused No.3 was indulged in printing counterfeit currency notes and to prove this fact the prosecution has examined PW11 Mohan who states in his evidence that the room in the first floor of the building was let to accused No.3 and he states that accused No.3 introduced himself as an Engineer and that he has got some project work to be done and therefore PW11 26 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 believing in the words of accused No.3 leased the premises. So, the possession of the room in the first floor would give a clear indication that it was the accused No.3 who was in exclusive possession of the said room and the fact that the material objects which were used in printing the notes were seized would clearly establish and attract the provisions of Section 489(A) IPC. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW11 solely for the reason that no rent agreement has been produced. PW11 is an independent witness having no interest either in the prosecution or the accused and he has told before the Court as to what had happened between accused No.3 and himself, therefore, his evidence inspires the confidence of the Court. It is relevant to note that it is from accused No.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 had brought the notes and were in possession of the same and it is accused Nos.1 and 2 who showed the premises to the police and therefore it could 27 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 be said that accused No.3 gave the notes to accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of circulation, thereby accused No.3 is also guilty for the offence under Section 489(B) IPC.
20. The seizure mahazar Ex.P4 reveals the notes which were in possession of accused No.3 at the time of the seizure and therefore the provisions of Section 489(C) IPC are also attracted. The instruments for making counterfeit currency notes were also found in possession of accused No.3 and the material placed on record is sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.3 having committed an offence punishable under Section 489(D) IPC.
21. On the point of sentence, it is relevant to note that accused No.3 took the premises for lease on 23.3.2005 and within three months thereafter police raided the premises and seized all the articles. It appears that, the printing 28 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 had commenced just about three months earlier to the date of the incident. The accused No.3 was aged about 36 years at the time when the incident took place and he is prosecuting the proceedings since for the last seven years.
22. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence, its seriousness and the probable number of counterfeit notes printed and sold, the interest of justice would demand reasonable sentence and the sentence of imprisonment of nine years ordered by the trial Court appears to be on the higher side.
23. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I think it is just and proper to award imprisonment for six years for the offence under Section 489(A), (C) and (D) IPC and to pay fine as ordered by the trial Court with default sentence.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 will have to be acquitted of the charge under Section 489(B) IPC.
29 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06
24. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.1856/2006 and 1306/2006 (accused Nos.1 and 2) for the offence under Section 489(B) IPC is set aside. They are acquitted of the said charge and the fine, if any in deposit, shall be refunded. Their conviction for the offence under Section 489-C IPC and the sentence there on are affirmed.
The accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have deposited the fine amount.
The conviction of appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1307/2006 (accused No.3) for the offence under Section 489(A to D) IPC is affirmed and the sentence for the offence under Section 489(A), (B) and (D) is modified. He is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences. The sentence ordered by the trial Court 30 Crl.As 1306 C/w 1307 & 1856/06 for the offence under Section 489(C) IPC is affirmed.
The said accused No.3 is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. All the sentences to run concurrently.
The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused No.3 to undergo the remaining part of sentence.
Fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in each of the appeals. The State shall pay the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Ksm*/*bgn/ap