Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. All the appellants named above have preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment and order dated 5-2-2001 to 8-2-2001 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 817 of 1998 by Sri Radha Krishna, 2nd Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao, Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna Singh and Manoj Kumar were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offences under Sections 489A and 489B IPC each and R. I. for seven years for the offence under Section 489C I.P.C. However, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 120B IPC A fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed against each of them under each count and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for one month. 'Appellant Uma Shankar Singh was found guilty for the offence under Sections 489A, 489D, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life each for the offence under Sections 489A and 489D IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 489C. However, no separate sentence was imposed upon him for the offence under Section 120B IPC but fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed against him under each count aforesaid and in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused Kedar Ram and Pramod Kumar were however, not found guilty and they were accordingly acquitted.

10. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record and the recovery of incriminating articles from the conscious possession of the appellants having been proved by the legal and reliable evidence on the record the learned Court below found the appellants named above guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

11. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for appellant Manoj Kumar that the learned Court below did not at all consider the evidence on the record meticulously in proper perspective and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. It has been submitted that according to the prosecution case the alleged recovery of the counterfeit currency notes was not made from the possession of this appellant in presence of P.W. 2, Brajesh Tiwary and P.W. 3 Manoj Kumar Agarwal, but P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal in his evidence on oath has not at all supported the factum of the said recovery from the conscious possession of the appellant in his presence and he was declared hostile and there is no legal evidence at all on the record to prove the factum of the alleged recovery from the possession of this appellant and the learned Court below has erred in coming to the finding of the alleged recovery from the possession of this appellant. It has also been contended that the alleged recovered counterfeit currency notes from the possession of this appellant was not sealed and non-sealing of the alleged recovered counterfeit currency notes has definitely, caused miscarriage of justice in this case and finding of the learned Court below that non-sealing of the said counterfeit Government currency notes has not affected the prosecution case is nothing but perverse. It has also been submitted that report of P.W. 15, the expert, suffers with legal infirmities in respect thereof which cannot form the basis for the conviction of this appellant and there is no legal evidence on the record for finding this appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D I.P.C. and for argument sake it can be said that the allegation if legally proved may fall under the ambit of Section 489E I.P.C. for which the punishment prescribed is only fine of Rs. 100/-. It has further been submitted that there is no allegation against this appellant that he has counterfeited any currency notes and bank notes or has knowingly performed any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency note or bank note and there is also no evidence on the record that this appellant has used as genuine, forged and counterfeit currency notes and in this view of the matter the prosecution of this appellant for the offence under Sections 489A, 489B and 489C I.P.C. is abuse of the process of law. It has also been submitted that Section 28 I.P.C. defines "counterfeit" and a person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised and as per explanation 2 of Section 28 I.P.C. the resemblance may be such that a person might be deceived thereby. It has also been submitted that counterfeit has to be done in the Government currency note itself and here in this case no counterfeiting has been done in the Government currency notes by any of the appellants and in such a situation no offence is at all made out under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C and 489D I.P.C. rather the allegation may fall only under Section 489E I.P.C. Lastly it has been contended that the alleged seizure of the said incriminating articles from this appellant suffers with infirmity and it is not in accordance with Section 165 Cr.P.C. and to crown all, there is no iota of legal evidence on the record to prove the allegation of conspiracy between this appellant and other co-accused persons of this case and the recovered alleged counterfeit currency notes has no resemblance at all with genuine Government currency notes so as to cause any deception and as such the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants Golo Mandla Rama Rao and Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna Singh have adopted the contention put forward on behalf of appellant Manoj Kumar. It has been further contended on behalf of appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh that no case at all is made out under Sections 489A and 489B I.P.C. against him and there is no iota of legal evidence on the record to show that this appellant had intended to use the said counterfeit currency notes and seizure witnesses also do not support the factum of recovery of the alleged counterfeit currency notes and in this view of the matter case under Section 489 C I.P.C. is also not made out against this appellant. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Archi Nawal Kishore Kujur v. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) East India Cr. Cases 548 (Pat) (RB); State of Punjab v. Gurnam Singh, 1987 (35) BLJR 379 : (AIR 1984 SC 1799 (1) (SC), M.Mamutti v. State of Karnataka, 1979 (4) SCC 723 : (AIR 1979 SC 1705 : 1979 Cri LJ 1383); Surinder v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 365 : 1994 AIR SCW 2820 Kanshi Bhagat v. State, 1960 BLJR 242, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cri LJ 32, Uma Shankar v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3074 : 2001 Cri LJ 4696 Karunakaran Nadar v. State, 2000 Cri LJ 3748, Ragho Saran Sao v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 Patna 405; Usman Mian v. State of Bihar, 1971 Cri LJ 747 and Sabitri Devi v. The State of Bihar, 1995 (2) PLJR 854, State of Bihar v. Harinandan Singh, 1970 PLJR 173.

26. To constitute an offence under Section 489B, I.P.C. it is essential that the currency notes in question is forged or counterfeit and the accused has sold or brought or received from some person or trafficked in or used as genuine such currency note knowing or having reasons to believe that the said currency note is forged or counterfeit. For the offence under Section 489C, I.P.C. in addition to the ingredients referred to above the accused must be in possession of counterfeit currency notes with intent to use it as genuine. In the case of Uma Shankar v. State of Chattisgarh (supra) relying upon the ratio of the case M. Manmutti (supra), (AIR 1979 SC 1705) : 1979 Cri LJ 1383), the Apex Court has been pleased to observe in para 8 that "A perusal of the provisions, extracted above shows that mens rea of offences, under Sections 489B and 489C is "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or bank notes are forged or counterfeit." Without the aforementioned mens rea selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489B of I.P.C. So also possessing or even intending to use any forge or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes is not sufficient to make out a case under Section 489C in the absence of the mens rea, noted above". In the case of Ragho Saran Sao (supra) (AIR 1961 Patna 405), Kanshi Bhagat (supra), Karunakaran Nadar (supra) (2000 Cri LJ 3748) and also in the case of Bachan Singh (supra) (1982 Cri LJ 32), emphasis has been laid regarding mens rea as a necessary constituent on the part of the accused for convicting him under Sections 489B and 489C of the I.P.C. However, in the case of Bachan Singh (supra) it has been observed that "in order to sustain conviction of an accused under Sections 420/511, 489B and 489C, the prosecution has not only to prove that the accused had the possession of counterfeit note, ensuring it or having reason to believe it as such, but further to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to his/her intention to use the notes on the public. Such intention could be proved by a collateral circumstance that the accused had palmed off such notes before or that he/she wag in possession of such notes in such large numbers, that her possession, for any other purpose was inexplicable." (Emphasis has been supplied by me). Here in this case 250 forged or counterfeit currency notes all in the denomination, of Rs. 100/- have been recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao. 50 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination have been recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Manoj Kumar whereas 230 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were recovered from the conscious possession of appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna Singh and 160 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination which were in the process of printing have been recovered from appellant Uma Shankar Singh. The recovery of forged or counterfeit currency notes in huge quantity from the possession of the appellants unequivocally leads to an inference that they were in possession of those forged or counterfeit currency notes knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use them as genuine and their possession for any other purpose is definitely inexplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case and the only reasonable presumption that could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of this case is that the appellants were in possession of those forged or counterfeit currency notes with intention to use or palm off them as genuine. The fact of the recovery of the forged or counterfeit currency notes aforesaid with intention to use them as genuine has been brought to the notice of the appellants in course of their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. very specifically and the appellants, did not furnish any examination in respect thereof for the reasons best known to them. The evidence on the record does show that the appellants were in possession of those forged or counterfeit currency notes with requisite mens rea to use them as genuine currency notes. Therefore, in view of the evidence on the record and its meticulous perusal the learned Court below has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of all the appellants under Section 489C, I.P.C. and further, all the appellants except appellant Uma Shankar Singh for the offence under Section 489B, I.P.C. and 1 see no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Court below in respect thereof. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Manoj Kumar that the allegation if proved shall fall under the ambit of Section 489E, I.P.C. has no substance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The police officials who were members of the raiding party are natural, competent and reliable witnesses of the occurrence in question and they have no animus to depose false against the appellants as well as to falsely implicate them. Their evidence is reliable and trustworthy and I see ring of truth in their evidence. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case no independent corroboration is at all required and the ratio of the case of Sabitri Devi (supra) (1995 (2) Pat LJR 854) has no relevancy in this case. The ratio of the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the appellants, which has not been discussed, has no relevancy in the facts and circumstances of this case.