Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The learned Court below on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on the record found all the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.

16. Let us now scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record regarding appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao. P.W. 1, Baijnath Singh, O/C Lalpur P. S. has deposed that P.W. 10. Victor Anthony, Police Inspector, Namkum Circle and P.W. 4. Birendra Kumar Singh, O/C Namkum P. S. came to him on 21-7-1998 at about 18.00 hours and told him that they have received confidential information regarding appellant Manoj Kumar that he indulges in unlawful trade of forge or counterfeit currency notes and he has received the forge or counterfeit currency notes from outside and gets them circulated through agents in the market, P.W. 1 has further deposed that a station diary entry in respect of the said information was made vide S.D. Entry No. 510 dated 21-7-1998 and he in the company of P.W. 11, Bijay Kumar Prasad, P.W. 5, Ashok Ram and Anil Kumar, all police officials along with the police force in the company of P.W. 4, S. I. Birendra Kumar Singh and P.W. 10, Inspector Victor Anthony aforesaid went near the house of appellant Manoj Kumar at about 18.15 hours on that day where P.W. 2, Brijesh Tiwary and P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agarwal were requested to be present in course of the said search of the house of appellant Manoj Kumar. He has further deposed that all the members of the raiding party were searched of their person by P.Ws. 2 and 3 aforesaid and nothing incriminating was recovered from their person and Ext. 1 having the signatures thereon of P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborates the said fact. He has further deposed that he along with the raiding party aforesaid entered into the premises of appellant Manoj Kumar and he found one person coming out of the house of appellant Manoj Kumar in a nervous state and on query he disclosed his name as appellant Golo Mandala Rama Rao. He has further deposed that person of appellant Golo Mandala Rama Rao was searched in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 as well as the members of the raiding party and 150 pieces of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination of different series were recovered from the right pocket of his fullpant and 100 pieces of counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination of different series were also recovered from the left pocket of his full-pant and the said counterfeit currency notes were seized and a seizure list was prepared by him which is Ext. 2 and the signatures thereon of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are Exts. 2/3 and 2/4 respectively. He has further deposed that a copy of the seizure list (Ext. 2) was handed over to appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao and in token of its acceptance he has put his signature thereon, which is Ext. 1/1. He has further deposed that the recovery of forged or counterfeit currency notes from the possession of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao have been produced before the Court and these are Material Ext. 1 and 1/1. In para 26 of his cross-examination this witness has deposed that the seized counterfeit currency notes from the possession of this appellant was not sealed and signature of this appellant was also not obtained on each seized counterfeit currency notes. P.W. 4, Birendra Kumar Singh has deposed that he was one of the members of the raiding party and he along with the members of the raiding party had gone to the house of appellant Manoj Kumar situate at Purulia Road, Ranchi and he met P.Ws. 2 and 3 at Lalpur Chowk and Nagratoli respectively and on his request they had agreed to assist the police in the raid. He has also deposed that the persons of the raiding party were searched by the aforesaid seizure witnesses and thereafter the raiding party came to the house of appellant Manoj Kumar where a person was found coming out from his house and he was apprehended and his person was searched and 150 pieces forged or counterfeit currency notes from the right pocket and 100 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from his left pocket each of Rs. 100/-denomination were recovered from that person and on query he disclosed his name as Golo Mandla Rama Rao and seizure list was prepared there. In para 11 of his cross-examination he has deposed that P.Ws, 2 and 3, who are witnesses of the search and recovery in question, have witnessed the seizure-list in his presence. P.W. 5, Ashok Rana P.W. 9, Anand Kumar, P.W. 10, Victor Anthony, all police officials, have in their evidence on oath corroborated the testimony of P.W. 1. the informant in material particulars. P.W. 5, Ashok Kumar. in para 2 of his evidence has, however, deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 3, were picked up in the way to Purulia Road. In para 9 of his cross-examination he has deposed that both the witnesses of search were found near the house of appellant-Manoj Kumar, P.W. 9, Anand Kumar, in para 4 of his evidence has specifically deposed that seizure list regarding recovery of the forged or counterfeit currency notes was prepared by P.W. 1 in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the independent witnesses of seizure. In para 11 of his cross-examination he has deposed that before proceeding from Lalpur P. S. for raid, station diary entry was made regarding the confidential information received from P.Ws. 4 and 10. He has also deposed in para 12 that he has made the said entry in the station diary of the Lalpur P. S. He has also deposed in para 14 that both the witnesses of search were found near the house of appellant Manoj Kumar and they were called by P.W. 1, the informant. P.W. 2, Brajesh Tiwary resident of Lalpur Chowk, who deals in restaurant business, is the witness of search and seizure in question. He has deposed that on 21-7-98 at the relevant time he had gone to see his friend and he found the police jeep stationed at the Purulia Road. He has further deposed that the police asked him and his friend P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal to help them in conducting the search as they had received information about the illegal trade of forged or counterfeit currency notes. He has further deposed that all the members of the raiding party gave their search to him and P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal aforesaid and a memo of seizure was prepared in respect thereof and nothing incriminating was recovered from the members of the raiding party. P.W. 2 admits his signature on the said memo of search and the signature thereon is Ext. 1/2. He has further deposed that the raiding party along with him and P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal entered into the premises of appellant Manoj Kumar where a person was found coming out from the house of appellant Manoj Kumar and he was apprehended and his person was searched and 150 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from his right pocket of full-pant and 100 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from left pocket of his full-pant, each of the denomination of Rs. 100/-, were recovered. He has further deposed that seizure list was prepared in their presence and he has witnessed the said seizure list and his signature thereon is Ext. 2/3. In his cross-examination he has deposed that search of the person of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao was made by P.W. 1, Baijnath Singh in his presence between 6.30 and 6.45 p.m. P.W. 2 materially corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1, the informant as well as other official witnesses. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discard his evidence in respect of apprehension, search and seizure of the aforesaid incriminating articles from the conscious possession of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao, P.W. 3, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, the other witness of search and seizure of this appellant, has deposed that he was passing through Purulia Road along with P.W. 2, Brajesh Tiwary and he found police vehicles stationed on the Purulia road and he along with P.W. 2 were called by P.W. 1. He has also deposed that he was requested to assist them in conducting raid of the house of appellant Manoj Kumar as they have got information regarding the racket of counterfeit currency notes being done in the house of appellant Manoj Kumar. He has also deposed that before the search and seizure of the appellant the police officials gave their search and nothing was found in their possession and a memo of search in respect thereof was prepared on which he has signed and his signature thereon is Ext. 3/1. He has further deposed that thereafter the raiding party entered into the premises of appellant Manoj Kumar where a person was found coming out of the said house and he was apprehended and his person was searched and forged or counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the possession of the said man and a seizure list was prepared in respect thereof in his presence and he figures as a witness thereon and his signature is Ext. 2/4 on the said seizure list. P.W. 3 has identified the said man in the dock whose person was searched before him and the name of said person is appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao. In his cross-examination he has specifically deposed regarding the recovery of 250 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from the pockets of the full-pant of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao as well as preparation of seizure list in respect thereof. However, para 9 of his cross-examination he has deposed that the said recovered forged or counterfeit currency notes were not sealed in his presence. P.W. 11, the I.O., who is also one of the members of the raiding party, in his evidence on oath has materially corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, read (sic) with other official witnesses and the seizure witnesses. In para 50 of his cross-examination he has specifically deposed that both the independent witnesses of search were found on the road 30-40 yards west of the place of occurrence. In para 10 of his evidence he has given the topography of the place of occurrence, which is the house of appellant Manoj Kumar having a boundary on all the four sides. From the evidence aforesaid it is established beyond reasonable doubts that as a result of raid in the house of appellant Manoj Kumar this appellant, namely, Golo Mandla Rama Rao was found coming out of the said house and he was apprehended by P.W. 1, the informant along with other members of the raiding party in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and the person of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao was searched by P.W. 1 in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and 150 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes and 100 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the right and left pockets of the full-pant of Golo Mandla Rama Rao respectively in presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and all those forged or counterfeit currency notes were in the denomination of Rs. 100/- and the seizure list in respect thereof was made and the said recovery has been made from the conscious possession of appellant Golo Mandla Rama Rao.

18. Let us now come to the evidence on the record regarding appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna. According to the prosecution case P.W. 1, the informant, had got confidential information at 20.30 hours on 22-7-1998 that appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna had been seen near Rajasthan Hotel at Lalpur Chowk in the town of Ranchi and he is possessed of counterfeit currency notes in huge quantity and the informant with the police force, went there and the said appellant was apprehended near Rajasthan Hotel aforesaid and on query he disclosed his name and, counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were recovered from the plastic bag in his possession and also from both the pockets of his full-pant. The evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, and P.W. 11, Bijay Kumar Prasad, I.O. besides, P.W. 7, Suresh Ram and P.W. 8, Bhola Prasad is relevant in respect thereof. P.W. 1 in para 9 of his evidence has deposed that on confidential information he had gone to Lalpur Chowk in the company of S.I. Ashok Ram and P.W. 11, Bijay Kumar Prasad, the I.O., along with the police force where appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna was found and he was apprehended and his person was searched by P.W. 11, Bijay Kumar Prasad in presence of two independent witnesses and in course of the said search forged counterfeit currency notes were recovered from the pockets of his full-pant and a seizure list in respect thereof was prepared by P.W. 11, the I.O. P.W. 1 has further deposed that in course of query appellant Manoj Kumar had disclosed the complicity of this appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna in the illegal trade of counterfeit currency notes and he has also told him about the gait and physical feature of appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna and on the basis aforesaid he along with the police force had apprehended appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna at Lalpur Chowk. P.W. 5, S.I. Ashok Ram in para 4 of his evidence has deposed that appellant Manoj Kumar had disclosed the name of Rakesh alias Munna Singh resident of Buxar on query regarding the person providing him with the forged or counterfeit currency notes. However, this witness does not whisper in his evidence on oath regarding his presence at the time of apprehension, search and seizure of appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna. P.W. 11, the I.O. and a member of the raiding parry, has deposed that in course of investigation he got confidential information on 22-7-1998 at about 22.30 hours that a person, who is involved in the racket of the counterfeit currency notes, has been seen in the vicinity of Rajasthan Hotel at Lalpur in the town of Ranchi and he is possessed of counterfeit currency notes in sufficient quantity and on this intimation he along with the police officials and the police force came there and apprehended appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna, who is the resident of Buxar, and his person was searched in presence of two independent witnesses and as a result of that search 100 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from the right pocket of his full-pant and 33 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes from the left pocket of his full-pant all in the denomination of Rs. 100/- were recovered in presence of two independent witnesses. In para 34 of his evidence he has further deposed that 97 pieces of forged or counterfeit currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- were recovered from a plastic bag in possession of this appellant. He has also deposed that he prepared the seizure list of the said incriminating articles in presence of the witnesses of search, namely, P.W. 7. Suresh Ram and P.W. 8, Bhola Prasad, who had witnessed and the said seizure list (Ext. 8) and their signatures thereon are Exts. 7/1 and 7/2 respectively. The aforesaid incriminating articles have been produced before the Court, which are material Exts. 11/61 to 11/390. P.W. 1 has also deposed to have identified appellant Ranjit Bahadur Singh alias Munna in the dock. However, in para 45 of his evidence he has deposed that the recovered forged or counterfeit currency notes were not sealed by him. P.W. 7, Suresh Ram and P.W. 8, Bhola Prasad had their shops in the close vicinity of Rajasthan Hotel at Lalpur Chowk in the town of Ranchi. Both the witnesses in their evidence on oath have deposed that the seizure list (Ext. 8) contained their signatures, which are Exts. 7/1 and 7/2 respectively. However, in cross-examination they have deposed that nothing was recovered from the possession of this appellant in their presence and they had put their signatures on blank paper at the police station. In view of the evidence of P.W. 1 read with P.W. 11 and the existence of the signatures of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 on the seizure list (Ext. 8) it stands substantiated that forged or counterfeit currency notes in huge quantity were recovered from the conscious possession of this appellant as a result of the search of his person.

25. Four wooden plates of the size of 8" x 10" used for printing counterfeiting currency notes were recovered from his house situate at Bihia as per Ext. 8/1 and in pursuance of his confessional statement and as pointed by him a large number of equipments, tools and other materials as per Ext.8/2 were recovered from the room in the premises of BISCOMAUN at Lohardaga. It further appears that in course of search some fully printed forged or counterfeit currency notes as well as some partly printed forged or counterfeit currency notes, which were in process of printing, were also recovered as per Ext. 8/2 and all those counterfeit currency notes were in the denomination of Rs. 100/- To constitute the offence under Section 489D, I.P.C. it is to be established that the recovered articles are machinery, instrument or material necessary for or used in forging or counterfeiting a currency note or a bank note and the accused had made or performed some part of the process of making the machinery, instrument or the material in question or that he had it in his possession and the object of the accused is that such machinery instrument or material might be, used for the purpose of forging or counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes or he knew or he had reason to believe that the same was intended to use for such purpose. It is pertinent to mention here that four wooden plates were recovered in presence of this appellant from his house at Bihia and thereafter in pursuance of his confessional statement and as pointed by him a large number of equipments, tools and other materials were also recovered from the room in the premises of BISCOMAUN, Lohardaga. It, therefore, appears that this appellant was in occupation of his house at Bihia as well as the room of BISCOMAUN at Lohardaga wherefrom the instruments for forging or counterfeiting currency notes were recovered and it also appears that he had control over the instruments, tools and equipments aforesaid. The recovery of the incriminating articles as per Ext. 8/1 and Ext. 8/2 clearly establishes the fact that the object of this appellant was that such machinery, instrument and materials which have been recovered might be used for the purpose of forging or counterfeiting currency notes. It is equally relevant to mention here that some printed forged or counterfeit currency notes as well as some partly printed forged or counterfeit currency notes which were in the process of printing have also been recovered from the room in the premises of BISCOMAUN, Lohardaga. This clearly establishes the fact that this appellant has intentionally involved himself with the making or performing forged or counterfeit currency notes. A mere perusal of the recovered articles as per Exts. 8/1 and 8/2 which are material exhibits in the case clearly establishes the fact that these articles are capable of being used in the making of forged or counterfeit currency notes. I, therefore, hold agreeing with the finding of the learned Court below that appellant Uma Shankar Singh counterfeited currency notes and knowingly performed the part of process of counterfeiting it intentionally with unlawful object. Therefore, the conviction of appellant Uma Shankar Singh under Sections 489A and 489D, I.P.C. does not suffer with any illegality.

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.