Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2013
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008
Date of decision : 21.03.2013
...
Sukhchain Singh
................Appellant
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. MITTAL
Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for appellants Avtar Singh s/o Gujjar Singh, Jagdish Lal and
Devinder Singh (In Crl.Appeal Nos.S-462-SB, 501-SB and
864-SB of 2008)
Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for appellant-Harjinder Singh.
(In Crl. Appeal No.S-462-SB of 2008)
Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate
for appellants Sarban Singh, Jugraj Singh and Avtar Singh @
Buggar Singh. (In Crl.Appeal Nos.S-543-SB of 2008 and
1701-SB of 2009)
Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate
for appellant-Sukhchain Singh.
(In Crl. Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008)
Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for
appellant-Avtar Singh.
(In Crl.Appeal No.S-1031-SB of 2008)
Mr. Mikhail Kad, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab.
...
L.N.MITTAL, J. (Oral)
By this common judgment, I am disposing of seven Criminal Appeals i.e. Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008, titled as Sukhchain Singh Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 2 Vs. State of Punjab, Crl.Appeal No.S-543-SB of 2008, titled as Sarban Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, Crl.Appeal No.S-462-SB of 2008, titled as Jagmohan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, Crl.Appeal No.S-1031-SB of 2008, titled as Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Crl.Appeal No.S-501-SB of 2008, titled as Jagdish Lal Vs. State of Punjab and others, Crl.Appeal No.S-864-SB of 2008, titled as Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Crl.Appeal No.S-1701-SB of 2009, titled as Avtar Singh @ Buggar Vs. State of Punjab, as all these appeals have arisen out of single FIR No.178 dated 03.08.2003, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station City Moga.
Avtar Singh son of Gujjar Singh (mentioned as Avtar Singh-1) is appellant in two appeals, one filed through counsel engaged by him and another filed through legal aid counsel.
According to the prosecution version, secret information was received on 03.08.2003 against all the nine convicts that they were habitual of counterfeiting currency notes. The place was raided after joining Gant Singh witness. All the nine accused were there. However, Jugraj Singh @ Raja, Sarban Singh and Avtar Singh @ Buggar (Avtar Singh-2) succeeded in escaping from the spot whereas remaining six accused Avtar Singh son of Gujjar Singh (referred to as Avtar Singh-1), Harjinder Singh, Devinder Singh, Sukhchain Singh, Jagdish Lal and Jagmohan Singh were arrested at the spot. From the said six accused, counterfeit currency notes as detailed in judgment of the trial Court were recovered. In addition thereto, a Printer from Devinder Singh, Computer Monitor, power track UPS and key board Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 3 from Harjinder Singh and a Cutter from Jagmohan Singh accused (allegedly being used for preparing counterfeit currency notes) were also recovered. Accused Sarban Singh, Avtar Singh-2 and Jugraj Singh @ Raja, who escaped from the spot, were apprehended on 05.08.2003 and counterfeit currency notes were recovered from them, as detailed in the judgment of the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, Devinder Singh accused had absented from the Court whereas remaining eight accused were convicted vide judgment dated 01.02.2008 and sentenced order dated 06.02.2008. Devinder Singh was convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2008.
All the nine accused have been convicted under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC and each has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of `5,000/- under Section 489- B IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `3,000/- under Section 489-C IPC. In addition to it, six accused, who were arrested at the spot on 03.08.2003, have also been convicted under Sections 489-A and 489-D IPC and each of them has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of `5,000/- for each of the said two offences. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.
Feeling aggrieved, the convicts have filed these appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files including file of the trial Court with their assistance.
Prosecution has examined SI Tehal Singh PW-3 (Investigating Officer), ASI Dilbag Singh PW1 and ASI Darshan Singh PW-5, who have Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 4 broadly stated according to prosecution version regarding recovery of counterfeit currency notes and equipment for preparation thereof. Varinder Singh PW-2 Computer Engineer has stated that the equipment i.e. Computer etc. recovered from some of the accused could be used to prepare counterfeit currency notes. Some of the counterfeit currency notes recovered from the accused were having printing on one side only. Vijay Bhushan Kalra PW-7, who was from State Bank of India, has stated that all the aforesaid notes recovered from the accused were counterfeit currency notes.
The accused in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. They alleged that no recovery was made from them. Accused Harjinder Singh alleged that SI Tehal Singh wanted to purchase a house in which Harjinder Singh was tenant and was pressurizing him to vacate the same within 15 days which he could not do and, therefore, he was falsely implicated. Accused Jagdish Lal alleged that he was arrested on 1.08.2003 from the house of Avtar Singh. In defence, accused examined HC Swaran Singh DW-1, who proved copies of two other FIRs along with lists of witnesses thereof.
Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as already noticed herein before. Feeling aggrieved, they have filed these appeals.
Custody certificates of seven of the convicts filed today in Court by the State counsel are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 5
Counsel for the appellants contended that independent witness Gant Singh has not been examined and, therefore, the prosecution case is not proved. The contention cannot be accepted. The prosecution has examined three witnesses of recovery of the counterfeit currency notes and other incriminating articles. Their statements could not be impeached in their cross-examination. They had no enmity with the accused persons. Except Harjinder Singh, no other accused has alleged any hostility against the aforesaid police officials. Even Harjinder Singh has not led any evidence regarding his alleged hostility with SI Tehal Singh over vacation of rented accommodation by the said accused. Jagdish Lal has also not led any evidence to the effect that he was arrested on 01.08.2003 from the house of Avtar Singh. There is no reason why the police officials would implicate the accused persons in false case by planting not only counterfeit currency notes but also computer parts. As regards non-examination of Gant Singh PW, he had to be given up as having been won over by the accused. It is not uncommon that such independent witnesses are invariably won over by the accused. Statements of the official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because of their official uniform when they were not hostile to the accused in any manner. Their statements are as much credible as those of non- official witnesses. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted.
Counsel for the appellants next contended that computer and its parts, as allegedly recovered from the three accused, are very commonly available and mere possession thereof would not constitute any offence. This contention cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 6 instant case. Offence under Section 489A IPC cannot be proved unless an accused is caught red-handed while preparing counterfeit currency notes, which is very rare. However, the said offence can also be proved by circumstances of each case. In the instant case, not only the computer parts were recovered but also counterfeit currency notes including currency notes printed on one side were recovered. Therefore, offences under Sections 489A and 489D are also proved against Devinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jagmohan Singh accused from whom the aforesaid computer parts were recovered. However, the said offences are not proved against Avtar Singh-1, Sukhchain Singh and Jagdish Lal accused because they were not in possession of the said equipment or any part thereof.
Counsel for the appellants also contended that the counterfeit currency notes were not sealed at the spot. However, this omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. Such like defect in investigation would not be sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution case. On the other hand, evidence led by the prosecution inspires confidence to prove the prosecution version.
Counsel for the appellants also contended that Vijay Bhushan Kalra PW-7 was not authorized to give opinion regarding the notes being counterfeit currency notes and the same should have been got examined from Reserve Bank of India or from Security Press, Nasik. This contention cannot be accepted. Even a layman may on proper scrutiny tell that the notes are counterfeit currency notes. Vijay Bhushan Kalra PW-7 had remained posted in various branches of State Bank of India and he was posted as Head Cashier at the relevant time. Consequently, he had vast Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 7 experience of examining the currency notes and to detect fake or counterfeit currency notes. His statement is, therefore, opinion of an expert witness. Even otherwise, police officials can also depose about the currency notes being counterfeit currency notes. The Court could also examine the question if accused had disputed the notes in question being not counterfeit currency notes. Moreover, some of the notes were printed on one side only, which would itself depict that the notes were counterfeit currency notes. Resultantly, the aforesaid contention carries no weight.
Counsel for the appellants also contended that mere possession of counterfeit currency notes would fall within the mischief of Section 489- C IPC only and, therefore, offence under Section 489-B IPC is not proved because there is not even an iota of evidence to depict that any accused indulged in sale or purchase of counterfeit currency notes or otherwise trafficked in the same or used the same as genuine. There is considerable merit in the submission. There is evidence only regarding possession of the counterfeit currency notes besides equipment for preparing the same. However, there is no evidence whatsoever to depict that any accused used any counterfeit currency note as genuine one or sold or purchased the same. Consequently, offence under Section 489B IPC is not made out.
Lastly, counsel for the appellants prayed for reduction in quantum of sentence. The prayer merits consideration. The occurrence took place almost 10 years ago. During this long period, the appellants have faced the agony of trial including these appeals.
Accordingly, conviction of all the nine appellants under Section 489-B IPC is set aside and conviction of appellants Avtar Singh son of Crl.Appeal No.S-353-SB of 2008 8 Gujjar Singh, Sukhchain Singh and Jagdish Lal for offences under Sections 489-A and 489-D IPC is also set aside. Conviction of the appellants for remaining offence(s) is maintained.
Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that accused Devinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jagmohan Singh should be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay fine of `5,000/- each for each of the two offences under Sections 489A and 489D IPC, whereas all the nine convicts should be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay fine of `3,000/- each for offence under Section 489-C IPC as awarded by the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment of convicts Devinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Jagmohan Singh shall run concurrently.
The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. The appellants, who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo remaining period of sentence, if any.
( L.N.MITAL ) 21.03.2013 Judge jt