Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) This appeal is against an order of conviction and sentence imposed by court below for offences found to be punishable under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, for short IPC.

2) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned Government Advocate.

3) On the basis of a tip off, the appellant and one Ajijur Rahaman were intercepted from Suruchi Hotel at Dhulian Market. 125 pieces of Fake Indian Currency Notes ('FICN' for short) of Rs. 500/- denomination each were recovered from inside the underwear of the appellant and 100/- pieces of FICN of Rs. 500/- denomination each from the inside pocket of the jacket of Ajijur Rahaman. Both of them were arrested and FICN of Rs. 1,47,000/- were seized from them. After due process of registering the case in the Police Station and on completion of investigation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jangipur, sent the accused Ajijur Rahaman to Juvenile Court by order dated 14.02.2007 since he was a minor on the date of occurrence. The case against the appellant Md. Sawkat Ali was committed to the Court of Session. The Court below framed charge against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty, and was tried. At conclusion of trial, the accused was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing on the question of sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code.

8) Assessing the material evidence on record, we are of the view that the Court below rightly negatived the argument on behalf of the accused that the allegation and the evidence do not disclose and prove an offence that would fall under Sections 489B and 489C of the IPC. The Court below was of the view that the defense plea in that regard is only to be rejected having regard to the possession of the counterfeit currencies by the appellant and Ajijur Rahaman whose case has been sent to the Juvenile Court. We do not find any infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence and the resultant conviction of the accused under Section 489C.

10) On to the question of sentence, we may recall that 195 pieces of FICN of Rs. 500/- denomination were recovered from the appellant and 100 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination FICN were recovered from Ajijur Rahaman. We are clear in our mind that the trial court was abundantly justified in taking the view that the legislature has given the message that reduction in sentence should be in exceptional circumstances and the factual scenario is that the appellant, who is a foreign national had entered India without a valid passport and visa and indulged in the criminal activity which is prejudicial to the interest of the State. The learned trial Judge has taken the view that the appellant's activity eloquently reveals that he, a foreign national, entered India with the sole object of spreading FICN, which is an activity destructive to the economic fabric of an independent State. This is essentially a case of corss-border activity prejudicial to the interest of Indian economy. Though the FIR was registered for offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, no charge was framed under the Foreigners Act. While we affirm the approach of the court below on the principles of sentencing, we are of the view that taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances and the quantity of FICN recovered from the appellant as well as the quantity of FICN on the possible transactions as between the appellant and Ajijur Rahaman, also balancing the incriminating and extenuating circumstances in the case in hand, ends of justice will be satisfied and it would be prudent if the appellant is handed down rigorous imprisonment of ten years, instead of imprisonment for life, for the offences punishable under Section 489B IPC and the default sentence as regards payment of the fine imposed by the court below for offences punishable under Section 489B IPC is reduced to six month. The sentence imposed by the court below on the appellant for offences punishable under Section 489C IPC do not warrant any interference.

11) In the result, this appeal is allowed in part as follows:

i) The finding of guilt and the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C are affirmed.

ii) The sentence imposed by the court below on the appellant under Section 489C is confirmed.

iii) The sentence imposed by the court below on the appellant under Section 489B is modified and reduced to be rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which, to suffer imprisonment of six months.