Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 556 (PNJ)

Saiyyad Iftikhar Hussain v. State of Punjab

2004-05-12

AMAR DUTT

body2004
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Saiyyad Iftikhar Hussain has filed the present appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. 2. The facts, in this case, are not in dispute. The appellant is a Pakistani National, who was apprehended on 4.7.2000 by Sukhbir Singh, Inspector Customs, PW 4 at the time when he alighted at Atari Railway Station from Samjhauta Express Train coming from Lahore. At clearance counter No. 8 his personal search led to the recovery of passports bearing Pakistan No. H-860362 Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and a fake Indian currency note of Rs. 500/- denomination, Ex. P- 3. At that time, he also had in his possession Rs. 2,000/- of Pakistani currency and Rs. 1,150/- of Indian currency. On the note being found to be fake, a challan was put in against him under Section 489-C Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty. His trial ended in conviction. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submission to a narrow compass. According to him, though his client may have been found in possession of a note, which has been found to be forged or counterfeit, yet in the absence of any evidence to show that he knew or had reason to believe that the note in his possession was forged or counterfeit and also intended to use the same as genuine, he could not be convicted of the offence under Section 489-C Indian Penal Code. In support of this submission, he has drawn my attention to the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to point out that no evidence has been brought on the record regarding this aspect of the case as is clear from the fact that no question in these terms has been put to the appellant and, therefore, the conviction will have to be set aside. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. On going through the record, it is clear that the explanation of the appellant has not been sought in relation to the fact that he knew or had reason to believe that the note recovered from him was forged as also to the fact that in spite of this knowledge, he intended to use the same as genuine. 5. On going through the record, it is clear that the explanation of the appellant has not been sought in relation to the fact that he knew or had reason to believe that the note recovered from him was forged as also to the fact that in spite of this knowledge, he intended to use the same as genuine. In view of this, ratio of the judgments reported as M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1705 and Gurnam Singh v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1992(1) RCR (Crl) 661 (P&H) squarely cover the point in issue. In M. Mammuttis case (supra), the Apex Court has observed as under :- "We are not able to find any inconsistency between the answer given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 before the Sessions Judge and that before the Committing Court specially on the point that the appellant had the knowledge or reason to believe that the notes were counterfeit. Mr. Nettar submitted that once the appellant is found in possession of counterfeit notes, he must be presumed to know that the notes are counterfeit. If the notes were of such a nature that a mere look at them would convince anybody that it was counterfeit such a presumption could reasonably be drawn. But the difficulty is that the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused know that the notes were of such a nature. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the nature of the notes also. In these circumstances, it is impossible for us to sustain the conviction of the appellant. For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is allowed, conviction and sentences passed on the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him." The position of the present case is no different. 5. In Gurnam Singhs case (supra), this Court had after adverting to Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code opined to the following effect :- "At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that the appellant had been charged under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In Gurnam Singhs case (supra), this Court had after adverting to Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code opined to the following effect :- "At the cost of repetition, it may be observed that the appellant had been charged under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The portions of these provisions, which have been underlined above, would show that before a person can be held guilty under these Sections, it must be proved that such a person, while using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes, knew or had reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. Similarly, it is required to be established that if a person is possessed of a forged or counterfeit currency note or bank note, he can be held guilty of the provision if he knew or had reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine." 6. In view of above, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, who is stated to be in jail, is directed to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.