Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"489A. Counterfeiting currency-notes or bank- notes.- 
                                     Whoever     counterfeits,   or    knowingly


Kapoor Prashant
2013.10.03 14:37
I attest to the accuracy
of this order
performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency-note or bank-note, shall be punished......"

(emphasis added) "489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.-

Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished... ..." (emphasis added) "489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-note.-

17. After analyzing the above statements and the material, it transpires that appellant No. 1, Sachin, from whom not only the computer and other related appliances were recovered but the semi processed paper containing two prints of one side of the denomination of a `50/- note were also recovered, had counterfeited the said currency and, therefore, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 489A, IPC. Likewise, he was also found in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes having knowledge of the same to be fake ones, Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.03 14:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order therefore, he has rightly been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 489C, IPC. It has also emerged on record that the computer and other appliances as well as partly processed paper containing print of the note of the denomination of `50/- would bring his misdeeds within the mischief of Section 489D, IPC. Therefore, he has rightly been convicted for the said offence as well.

21. Appellant No. 2, Deepak, was found in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes with the knowledge the same to be forged or counterfeit, his conviction under Section 489C, IPC, recorded by the learned Trial Court is affirmed.

22. While hearing learned counsel for the appellants on the quantum of sentence, he submitted that the occurrence had taken place 12 years back. At that time appellant No. 1, Sachin, was 23 years old while appellant No. 2, Deepak, was about 22 year of age. He further submits that neither of the appellants is a previous convict. Even after registration of the present case, they are not involved in any other criminal activity. He further submitted that both the appellants belonged to the business families and after registration of the case both of them have joined the main stream of the life. The marriage of appellant No. 1, Sachin, was solemnized in a respectable family in the year 2004 and he is blessed with a son and a daughter, and he is running his family business. However, he could not make any submission with regard to the marital status of appellant No. 2, Deepak, but submitted that he has the information that after the Kapoor Prashant 2013.10.03 14:37 I attest to the accuracy of this order occurrence, even he (Deepak) is not involved in any other case. He also submitted that after filing of the appeal, the substantive sentence of the appellants was suspended on 29.1.2004, but they did not misuse the said concession in any manner. On the strength of the above submissions, he has prayed that the appellants be let off since each appellant has undergone more than two years of the substantive sentence.