High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2005Suresh S/o. Deorao Mhaske,Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Labourer,R/o. Bhimnagar, Bhavsingpura,Aurangabad. ….. Appellant(Ori. Accused No.1)VersusThe State of Maharashtra ….. Respondent…..Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Prashant Shinde h/f Mr. S.G. Shinde.APP for Respondent-State : Mr. D.R. Korade….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 13 December, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 03 January, 2025JUDGMENT : 1.Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated18.03.2005, passed by learned Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.20/2005, recording guilt of thepresent appellant for offence punishable under Section 489-C of theIndian Penal Code (hereinafter shortly referred to as “IPC”). -2- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005IN NUTSHELL, CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS UNDER :2.Police Station Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad charge-sheetedthe present appellant alleging that, secret information was receivedthat the appellant is in possession of counterfeit and fake currencynotes and he is about to circulate said notes in the market. On receiptof said information, PW2 Police Inspector, P.S. Kranti Chowk i.e.Informant, planned and arranged trap on 04.07.2004, near SamtaNagar Chowk, Aurangabad. PW2 Informant caught the appellant andin his body search, he was found to be in possession of 19 currencynotes of Rs.100/- each, in his pant pocket. Same were seized videpanchnama and thereafter, PW2 Informant lodged the report and onthe basis of which, Crime No.182/2004 was registered against theappellant. He himself carried out investigation and after gatheringevidence, he charge-sheeted the appellant.3.The appellant was tried by 1st Ad-hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Aurangabad vide Sessions Case No.20/2005, for offencespunishable under Sections 489-A, 489-C & 489-D of the IPC. Oncomplete appreciation and analysis of the evidence, learned trialJudge by his judgment and order dated 18.03.2005, held theappellant guilty, but only for offence punishable under Section 489-Cof the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five yearsand to pay fine.
Legal Reasoning
-3- Cri Appeal No. 201.20054.It is the above judgment which is now taken exception toby filing instant appeal. SUBMISSIONSON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT :5.Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that,there is false implication. He questioned the very story of prosecutionon several grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. Learned counselwould further point out that, PW2 informant/police officer claimsabout receipt of secret information and thereafter, laying of trap andapprehended the appellant. According to him, at the outset, it was notverified either by Investigating Officer or even by learned trial courtas to whether the appellant himself had knowledge that the currencyin his possession was at all fake. 6.Learned counsel submitted that, it has not beenappreciated whether there was any intention or attempt even to usecurrency or to give it for circulation and as such, according to him,both essential ingredients for attracting the charges were patentlymissing. 7.Learned counsel further submitted that, entire case of theprosecution is rested on four witnesses. There is no independent -4- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005witness. Only one independent witness is spot panch. He pointed outthat, apparently, Investigating Officer and informant claims thatcurrency was found to be kept in the watch pocket inside the pant.Therefore, it is his submission that, the appellant had kept currency insaid pocket, because the same were genuine and according to him,had it been fake or counterfeit, he would not have preserved it andwould have rather kept in shirt pocket or front pocket of the pant. Healso took this court through the evidence of PW4 InvestigatingOfficer, who was cross-examined, and submitted that, case is notproved beyond reasonable doubt. That, prosecution claims thatmoney was intended to be circulated by using it in a shop, but noshopkeeper is examined. 8.For all above reasons, learned counsel submits that, asessential ingredients for attracting offence under Section 489-C of theIPC not being available, conviction ought not to have been recordedby the trial court. In support of above submissions, he seeks relianceon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases :i)M. Mammutti Vs. State Of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1705.ii)Palanisamy Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) Page 643.iii)Umashankar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3074. -5- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE :9.In answer to above, learned APP for the respondent-State, while supporting the judgment of conviction, pointed out that,secret information was received by PW2 informant, who planned andarranged trap and apprehended the appellant and he was found to bein possession of currency notes. That, said currency notes were gotchecked through Security Press and even through cashier of bankfrom the special machine, which revealed that the currency noteswere fake and counterfeit. Thus, according to learned APP, theappellant was in a conscious possession of fake currency notes. 10.Learned APP further pointed out that, before theappellant could use fake currency notes, he was apprehended. That,in presence of two panchas, said currency notes were seized. He hadnot put any defense nor given any plausible explanation whileanswering to statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. That,evidence of prosecution was convincing. The evidence of PW2informant and PW4 Investigating Officer has remained intact andtherefore, prayers are made for dismissing the appeal for want ofmerits. -6- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT :11.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined in allfour witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance oftheir evidence can be summarized as under :PW1Mr. Ramdas Santaram Gaikwad, Police Head Constable, PoliceStation Kranti Chowk. In his substantive evidence at Exhibit 15,para.2 narrated as under : “2.At the said place, in presence of panchas, the person ofsaid person/accused No.1 was searched. And we found that, hewas having 19 currency notes of Rs.100/- each denomination,in his pocket. On inquiry by Chate, PI, the said person gave hisname as Suresh Deorao Mhaske, r/o Bhavsingpura,Aurangabad. On further inquiry by Chate, PI, accused No 1gave the names of his four colleagues, by name—Shakti Bhise,Subhash Bhise, Pandit Narwade and one more. At the spotonly, a separate panchanama was drawn, by which 19 currencynotes, found with accused No.1, were attached. Accused No 1alongwith the currency notes was brought to Kranti Chauk PS.”PW2Informant Dr. Kanchankumar Dashrathrao Chate, PoliceInspector, Police Station Kranti Chowk. Relevant portion of hisevidence at Exhibit 18 is as under :“1.On 4-7-2004, I was working as Sr. P.I. At Kranti ChaukP.S. On that day, at about 7 p.m., I received a secret -7- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005information that, a person by name Suresh Deorao Mhaske istrying to deliver a forged currency note to a groceryshopkeeper in Samta Nagar Chauk, Aurangabad. I immediatelycalled the two panchas by name Sk Jakir and Syed Mois to theP.S. I gave this secret information to both these panchas andalso to my staff-members and also have given the instructions,as to what is to be done. Thereafter, myself alongwith the twopanchas API Kale, informant and other police-staff, went toSamtanangar by walk. On reaching to Samtanagar chauk, froma distance, the informant pointed out the person concerned,i.e. Suresh. Thereafter, myself, with the help of my staff, hadcaight the said person, at that spot and it was at about 7-30p.m. Thereafter, I introduced myself, so also the two panchas,to said Suresh. And we asked his name, place of residence etc.He gave his name-as Suresh Deorao Mhaske, r/o Bhimnagar,Bhavsingpura, Aurangabad. I disclosed him the intention toapprehend him.2.At the same spot, in presence of the two panchas, theperson of Suresh was searched. In the search, in the innerpocket of his pant, nineteen currency notes of Rs.100/- eachdenomination were found. I also found with him a visiting cardand two chits giving two different names. Having somewritings thereon. All these articles were taken in possession byme from him, by drawing a detailed panchanama of it. Thepanchanama is signed by both the panchas, so also said Suresh.The currency notes were kept in an envelope, in the innerpocket of the pant and the signatures of panchas were alsoobtained on that envelope. I identify the panchanama now -8- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005shown to me, which bears the signatures of the two panchasand accused and also of myself. The contents of panchanamaare true and correct and it is marked at Exh.19. The numbersof the currency notes, which were found with said Suresh, alsomentioned in the panchanama. I identify the nineteen currencynotes now shown to me, the Nos. of which are mentioned inthe panchanama. I also identify the signatures of myself andpanchas on the brown-coloured enveloped, in which thenineteen currency notes were found with Suresh. The witnesswas shown the currency notes and the envelope, having a lableof panchas’ signatures, marked as Article No.1 before the courtand he identified these articles. Thereafter alongwith thisattached property, the accused, the panchas and my staff,returned to the Kranti Chauk P.S. Aurangabad. 3.In the P.S., I interrogated the accused about hiscolleagues and he gave the names of his five colleagues, whichare mentioned in complaint, which I lodged. I lodged thecomplaint in behalf of the State against the six accused, namedin the complaint. The contents of the complaint are true and Iidentify my signature thereon and it is marked at Exh.20……”PW3Syed Moin Syed Majjid, pancha to the seizure panchnama, whoexamined at Exh.21 narrated that, in his presence, search wasconducted and the appellant was found to be in possession of19 currency notes i.e. in his pant pocket and said currencynotes were seized and kept in brown envelope and he causedsignatures over panchanamas as well as envelope. -9- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005PW4Investigating Officer Mr. Vidyanand Murlidhar Kale, AssistantPolice Inspector, Kranti Chowk Police Station. In his substantiveevidence at Exhibit 28, para.1 narrated as under : “1.On 4-7-2004, I was working as API at Kranti Chauk PS,Aurangabad. On that day, at about 7 p.m. I was in the cabin ofpw2 Chate, PI, and the informant had come to Chate in thecabin. The informant gave the information to PI-chate that, inSamtanagar Chauk, one person is trying to dispose off theforge-currency-notes. Chate, PI, ascertained for himself thecorrectness of the information and then called the two panchasand other staff of P.S. Thereafter, alongwith informant, and thetwo panchas. Myself, Chate, PI, and our staff went toSamtanagar Chauk by walk. The informant, from the distance,pointed out the person to me & Chate, PI and that person wascaught at the spot. On inquiry, the said person gave his namesSuresh Mhaske. When his person was searched, in the pocketof his pant, 19 currency notes of Rs.100/- each denominationwere found. Besides that, visiting-card, a diary and a chit alsowere found with him. In presence of the two panchas, at thesame place, those currency notes and other articles wereattached by drawing the panchanama there. After drawing thepanchanama, we all alongwith the said person returned toKranti Chauk PS. Chate, PI, lodged the complaint and alsoregistered the offence No. 182/2004 and its investigation wasentrusted to me.” -10- Cri Appeal No. 201.2005ANALYSISCHARGE UNDER SECTION 489-C OF IPC : 12.Section 489-C of IPC, for ready reference, is reproducedas under :“489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notesor bank-notes.—Whoever has in his possession any forgedor counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing orhaving reason to believe the same to be forged orcounterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine orthat it may be used as genuine, shall be punished withimprisonment of either description for a term which mayextend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” 13.On complete re-appreciation of evidence, moreparticularly, that of PW2 informant and PW4 Investigating Officer,who were police officers and have carried out the investigation, it isrevealed that, on secret information, trap was laid in Samata NagarChowk and the appellant was apprehended and in his body search, hewas found to be in possession of 19 currency notes of Rs.100/- each.Same were seized in presence of independent panch i.e. PW3 SyedMoin, who has supported the prosecution. 14.As regards to genuineness of currency is concerned, it hascome in the evidence of PW4 Investigating Officer that, on -11- Cri Appeal No. 201.200506.07.2004, attached currencies were confronted to cashier of StateBank of Hyderabad, who, on examination, declared the same to becounterfeit and forged. Even currencies were referred to SecurityPress, Nashik and its report is received, which is marked as Exh.27.The said report from Currency Press shows that currencies werecounterfeit and forged. 15.Obviously, when investigation was carried out on secretinformation, there cannot be independent witnesses. However, here,PW3 Syed Moin i.e. pancha to the seizure panchanama, isindependent witness and he has supported the prosecution. It ispertinent to note that, the accused/appellant has not refuted ordenied that he was not at all in possession of currencies. Stand takenby the accused/appellant vide statement recorded under Section 313of Cr.P.C. is that, he was not aware and that, he had no knowledgethat the same were counterfeit. However, as pointed out by learnedAPP, appellant was in a conscious possession of the counterfeit notes.Security Press has declared the same to be counterfeit. Essentialingredients for attracting Section 489-C of IPC are patently availablei.e. possession of forged and counterfeit currency. There is evidence tothat extent. -12- Cri Appeal No. 201.200516.Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of evidence, thiscourt do not find any infirmity in the manner of appreciation at thehands of learned trial court. Except making submission that there isimproper appreciation on the aspect of knowledge about currency tobe fake, there is no other convincing ground raised in the appeal. Asstated above, the accused/appellant was apprehended while he was inpossession of counterfeit currency and he offered no explanation forthe same. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merits, I proceed topass following order. ORDERThe criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]ASD