Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.05.2009 whereby the Appellant has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 80/09 under Sections 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for possessing and indulging in manufacture of counterfeit currency. By order of sentence dated 15.05.2009, for offence under Section 489C of IPC, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh has also been imposed; in default of payment fine, the appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. For offences under Section 489D IPC, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs 2 lakh has been imposed; in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(iv) It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant made a disclosure statement proved as Ex PW-5/D and recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1857 admitting that he has been involved in the manufacturing of counterfeit currency. Pursuant to the said disclosure, the appellant got recovered fake currency notes worth Rs. 15,000/- (Ex P-13/1) from the table drawer in the computer room at his residence which was seized vide Ex PW 5/E. The appellant also got recovered from the computer room at his residence two CPU‟s, one Gold Star Monitor, one scanner, one Hp printer, one mouse, one keyboard, one UPS, blade and 110 sheets of printing paper. The said articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW-5/F. The seized currency notes and computers parts were sent up for forensic examination. The CFSL report (Ex PW-7/A) revealed that the notes of Rs 15,000/- were fake. The forensic report (Ex PW- 8/A) of computer hard discs disclosed presence of scanned images of Rs 100/- denomination currency notes. According to the prosecution, the police remand of the appellant was granted for one day during which the appellant demonstrated before the police the modus operandi employed by him for scanning and printing of fake currency and as a result thereof, two fake notes(Ex P-13/2 and P-13/3) was prepared by the appellant. Accordingly, a charge under Section 489D IPC was added against the appellant.

3. Before me, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment on several counts which include shaky investigation, non-cogent testimonies of police witnesses and failure to establish recovery at the instance of the appellant.

INVESTIGATION

4. With respect to investigation, the Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the contemporaneous documents such as rukka (Ex PW-6/A), FIR (Ex PW-1/A), arrest memo (Ex PW-5/ B), seizure memo (Ex PW-5/A), disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex PW-5/D) and personal search memo (Ex PW-5/C) were all ante-timed and planted by the police against the appellant. In order to substantiate the said contention, it is submitted that a charge under Section 489D IPC could have only been added against the appellant once the recoveries were made pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the appellant. However, the charge under Section 489D finds mention on the rukka, FIR, disclosure statement, the arrest memo and the personal memo of the appellant which clearly demonstrate that the said documents were fabricated and manipulated by the police officials to falsely implicate the appellant.

38. Therefore, I conclude that prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 489D of IPC for want of sufficient evidence and the sentence imposed by the trial court on that count is set aside.

39. In view of the discussion above, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant on charge under Section 489D is set aside. His conviction under Section 489C is however maintained and the sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 489 C is upheld.

40. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.