Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)State Of U.P vs Anil Singh on 26 August, 1988
4. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that after the
chance recovery of Rs. 500/- from the Appellant Bhanwar Singh, house
search of Bhanwar Singh was conducted and 18 fake currency notes of
Rs.500/- denomination were recovered which bore the same number as that
Crl. Appeal Nos. 105/2003 and 548 of 2003 Page 2 of 6
of the note recovered from the pocket of the Appellant Bhanwar Singh.
Further the search of the house of the Appellant Sakaldeep was conducted
from where 45 fake currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination bearing the
same numbers were recovered along with two papers printed with fake
currency notes on one side. It thus shows that the Appellants were into large
scale illegal activity of preparing the fake currency notes and circulating
them. The contention that public witnesses were not associated is liable to be
rejected as even in the absence of public witness conviction can be safely
based on the testimony of the police witnesses. Reliance is placed on State of
U.P. vs. Anil Singh, 1988 (suppl.)
Karamjit Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 24 April, 2000
7. The only contradiction pointed out is that PW5 SI Om Prakash stated
that the first currency note of Rs. 500/- was recovered by the SHO whereas
the other witnesses have stated that the same was recovered by SI Om
Prakash. It may be noted that besides the first currency note recovered from
the pocket, 18 more fake currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each and
eight fake currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- were recovered from
underneath the pillow of Appellant Bhanwar Singh's bed. It is thus apparent
that the Appellant Bhanwar Singh is not a victim to whom fake currency
notes had been passed in the ordinary course of transaction and thus caught
with it. He was in conscious possession of the fake currency notes. Further
except for this contradiction, there is no contradiction in the testimony of the
police witnesses and merely because no public witness was associated when
the recovery was made from the residence of the Appellants, the testimony
of the police witnesses cannot be rejected as held in Karamjit Singh (supra).
Section 100 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1