Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1281 (BOM)

Asraful Haque v. State of Goa

2013-07-10

R.C.CHAVAN

body2013
JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant of offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default of payment of fine suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months, on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the second count on the conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.20/2010. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: On 27/03/2010, the appellant approached the shop, where one Ashok Dessai was working for getting recharge coupon of vodafone company worth Rs.100/-. The shopkeeper did the recharge for the appellant and the appellant handed over a thousand rupee note to the shopkeeper, who noticed that the letters RBI were not on the security thread. Doubting the genuineness of the note the shopkeeper compared it with another thousand rupee note with him and found that the note given by the appellant was fake. He asked the accused for its particulars and then in the meantime since neighbouring shopkeepers gathered somebody informed the police and the police already arrived at the shop. The shopkeeper Ashok Dessai went along with the police and the appellant to the police station and handed over the fake currency note to the police which was seized by the police. The police searched the appellant person in presence of panchas and found 24 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/-which were similar to the fake currency note and therefore were seized. Ashok Dessai gave a report whereupon an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 3. In course of investigation, the police party, the Investigating Officer and all panchas went to Sultan Lodge where the appellant was stated to have been putting up. At the Sultan Lodge, room no.203, which the appellant was occupying was opened and searched and was found to contain a bundle of 75 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/- and 44 currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/-. These notes were found to be similar to the notes seized from the appellant in the police station and therefore they were also seized and a panchanama was drawn up. The notes seized were sealed. These notes were found to be similar to the notes seized from the appellant in the police station and therefore they were also seized and a panchanama was drawn up. The notes seized were sealed. The Investigating Officer sent the notes which had been seized to the Currency Notes Press at Nasik Road through Superintendent of police. Before the receipt of report from the Currency Notes Press, charge sheet was sent up on 25/06/2010. The report itself was received on 2/08/2010. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions the learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned charged the appellant of offences punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and, therefore, was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellant. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of denial raised by the accused the learned Judge sentenced and punished the appellant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and with the help of both, I have gone through the evidence on record. PW1/Ashok Dessai is the servant of one Ravindra Jadhav, who runs a shop for repairing mobile phones and selling recharge coupons. He stated that on 27/03/2010 at about 9 p.m. the appellant came to the shop and sought recharge of his vodafone mobile sim card for Rs.100/-. Ashok Dessai claims to have done the needful. The appellant paid Rs.1000/- in the form of one currency note which Ashok Dessai found to be suspicious. He compared it with the notes in his drawer and found that the note was fake. He then sought particulars from the appellant when people gathered and called police. He states having accompanied the appellant to the police station and then handed over the note which had been received by him from the appellant. The note was bearing serial number 6CF797305. He also states about the personal search of the appellant carried out by the police in the police station. This search was carried out in presence of one Kiran Naik, who was examined as PW2. 6. The note was bearing serial number 6CF797305. He also states about the personal search of the appellant carried out by the police in the police station. This search was carried out in presence of one Kiran Naik, who was examined as PW2. 6. PW2/Kiran Naik states that when he was sitting in a hotel the police constable came to call him to act as a pancha. He states that the appellant was searched in his presence in the police station and 3 currency notes of denomination of Rs.10/-, 24 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-and a key with a key chain having the word Sultan Plaza were seized. The 24 currency notes were having serial numbers 6CF797301 to 6CF797326, except of course, the note bearing serial number 6CF797305 which had been handed over by the first informant and note bearing number 6CF797304. PW2/Kiran Naik stated that the notes were seized, placed in an envelope and the envelope was also sealed. He identified his signatures on the property seized and also proved the panchanama at exhibit 13. PW6/Prashant Narvekar is another pancha at the panchanama at exhibit 13 drawn in presence of PW2/Kiran Naik. He admitted in his cross-examination that constable Deepak Naik, who had called him for the panchanama was his friend. This panchanama had been drawn up by PW8/PSI Vaibhav Naik. He stated that on receiving information that the person had been caught with fake currency notes he had gone to the shop of Ashok Dessai. He got necessary information from Ashok Dessai and then brought Ashok as well as the appellant to the police station. He stated that the report of Ashok Dessai was recorded which Ashok Dessai has proved at exhibit 11. He then stated about the panchanama, which was drawn by calling two panchas in course of which the appellant was searched and was found to have 24 counterfeit notes of Rs.1000/-bearing serial number 6CF797301 to 6CF79732 excepting notes at serial no. 6CF797304 and 6CF797305. He also states having seized a key with plastic key chain with the inscription Sultan Plaza 203 and the phone number of the hotel. He states that the accused was given a change of clothes. 7. PW3/Chandan Yadhav states that he was called as a pancha by PSI Vaibhav Naik at Sultan Lodge at Vasco. The other pancha was one Elvis Gonsalves. He states that the accused was given a change of clothes. 7. PW3/Chandan Yadhav states that he was called as a pancha by PSI Vaibhav Naik at Sultan Lodge at Vasco. The other pancha was one Elvis Gonsalves. He states that the PSI showed the key with him to the receptionist and confirmed that the key was of the room no.203 of the said lodge. He states that the panchas and the police party went to room no.203 of the first floor. The room was opened and the search revealed a bundle of 75 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-and another bundle having 44 notes of denomination of Rs.500/-. He stated that the notes were printed on a paper which was thin as compared to the original notes and also the RBI line was not proper and was not in a straight line. The notes were seized and sealed in his presence. The hotel register also showed the name of the appellant which was also seized under the panchanama. He proved the panchanama at exhibit 17, envelope at exhibit 18 along with currency notes of Rs.1000/-. He also proved envelope at exhibit 19 which contained currency notes of Rs.500/-. He proved the seals which were cut from the envelope at exhibit 20. 8. PW4/Riyaz Shaikh is a partner of Sultan Lodge who stated having checked in the appellant on 27/03/2010 at about 5.20 p.m. along with two other persons and PW5/Khaja Kallur is the receptionist working at the said lodge, who confirmed that the appellant was occupying room no.203 in the said lodge. These witnesses stated that the lodge itself is situated on the second and third floor of the building and the room no.203 is located on the third floor. PW5/Khaja Kallur was also present when the room was searched by the police. He too stated that the police found counter notes in the said room. 9. PW7/Sandeep Naik, police constable stated that he was the member of the police party, which went to the Sultan Lodge where search of room no.203 had taken place. He stated that room no.203 was on the second floor. 10. PW8/Vaibhav Naik is the Investigating Officer, who told the entire story right from his going to the shop of Ashok Dessai till filing of charge sheet. He stated that room no.203 was on the second floor. 10. PW8/Vaibhav Naik is the Investigating Officer, who told the entire story right from his going to the shop of Ashok Dessai till filing of charge sheet. In cross-examination he stated that it was true that the opinion from the Currency Notes Press from Nasik came after the filing of the charge sheet. He then seems to have added that before filing the charge sheet he had shown the notes to the Manager of State Bank of India to confirm that the notes were fake. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire evidence is full of discrepancies and the learned Judge should have rejected the evidence and acquitted the accused. She submits that the story given by PW1/Ashok Dessai was not worthy of belief because Ashok could not state the telephone number of the mobile phone which was charged or even the serial number of the recharge coupon which was used. She further submits that PW2/Kiran Naik and PW6/Prashant Naik, pancha of the first panchanama are got up witnesses and possibly had no business to be present at the place where they were called. PW6/Prashant Naik admitted that he is a friend of Deepak Naik and, therefore, was bound to tow the prosecution line. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no suggestion to any of these witnesses that the notes were planted by the police party on the person of the appellant. He submits that it cannot be a coincidence that the serial number of note which was given to PW1/Ashok Dessai was 6CF797305 and the other 24 notes found on the person of the appellant were from the same series and were bearing numbers from 797301 to 797236 except note no.797304. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor the learned trial Judge has rightly believed this evidence about seizure of notes from the person of the appellant in the police station. The doubts expressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant about the necessity of taking the appellant to the police station rather than conducting panchanama on the spot, need not be given any importance, since police station was not far away and it would normally be inappropriate to hold a search and draw a panchanama on a public street. 13. The doubts expressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant about the necessity of taking the appellant to the police station rather than conducting panchanama on the spot, need not be given any importance, since police station was not far away and it would normally be inappropriate to hold a search and draw a panchanama on a public street. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant had similar serious objections about the evidence of PW3/Chandan Yadhav, PW7/Sandeep Naik, Police Constable and PW8/Vaibhav Naik, PSI about the search carried out in room no.203 at Sultan Lodge on 28/03/2010. There seems to be a typographical error in the charge where the date mentioned is 28/06/2010, which could be ignored. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that these witnesses are not likely to have been present at the search in Sultan Lodge since they cannot even correctly tell the floor on which the room was situated. She points out that while PW3/Chandan Yadhav states that the room was on the first floor, PW7/Sandeep Naik and PW8/Vaibhav Naik, PSI state that the room was on the second floor. As against this, PW4/Shaik Hussain and PW5/Khaja Kallur had stated that the room was on the third floor. There can be no doubt that the witnesses are not sure as to where the room is situated, but this is possible because some witnesses may have mistaken storey for a floor and some witnesses may have genuine lapse of memory as to how many flights of stairs they climbed. This is not a serious discrepancy which should affect the reliability of their witnesses. 14. These witnesses state that room no.203 was opened and searched and 75 currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-incidentally in the same series from 6CF797327 to 6CF797400, and 44 currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/-in the series 8BP were found. The fact that the thousand rupee notes which were found in the room were from the same series as the notes found on the person of the appellant, during the search, on the previous night, as also the currency note which the appellant had sought to pass on to PW1/Ashok Dessai, cannot be a mere coincidence. The fact that the thousand rupee notes which were found in the room were from the same series as the notes found on the person of the appellant, during the search, on the previous night, as also the currency note which the appellant had sought to pass on to PW1/Ashok Dessai, cannot be a mere coincidence. The learned Counsel for the applicant however submitted that this evidence was not enough to connect the appellant to the crime since the room was occupied by two more persons other than the appellant and, therefore, the possession of the notes found in the room could not have been attributed to the appellant. Even if it is taken for the sake of argument that two more persons were with the appellant in the room and the notes could also belong to those persons, it would imply that the appellant and two other unknown persons were involved in passing fake currency notes. Merely because those two persons could be found, it does not follow that the appellant's complicity in the offence is not proved. It cannot be overlooked that the key of the room was seized from the appellant vide panchanama exhibit 13 in the police station and the room was opened with that key. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the packets in which the notes were kept were opened. According to PW8/Vaibhav Naik, PSI, the notes were shown to the Manager of State Bank of India and, therefore, it is doubtful if the notes reached in same sealed condition to Currency Notes Press. The evidence of PSI Naik would show that in course of cross-examination when he was asked that the charge sheet was filed before the report of the Currency Notes Press came, he seems to have blurted out that before filing of charge sheet, he showed the notes to Manager of State Bank of India. He could not have done so because the notes were already sent to Currency Notes Press. Therefore, this sentence in the deposition of PSI may be false, coming out of his zeal to explain as to why he filed the charge sheet before the opinion came. But that itself cannot result in rejection of the entire prosecution story. He could not have done so because the notes were already sent to Currency Notes Press. Therefore, this sentence in the deposition of PSI may be false, coming out of his zeal to explain as to why he filed the charge sheet before the opinion came. But that itself cannot result in rejection of the entire prosecution story. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has been held to be inapplicable in India and, therefore, merely because the officer chose to make one wrong statement the entire story cannot be discarded. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in proving charge of offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code the most important ingredient is mens rea i.e. the knowledge that the currency notes which the appellant was passing on or possessed were forged or counterfeit notes. The learned Counsel submitted that there was no reason for the appellant to believe that the notes which were allegedly seized from his possession or from the room were forged or counterfeit notes. She relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in support of her contention. In the case of M. Mammutti V/s. State of Karnataka reported at AIR 1979 SC 1705 , the Court was considering the case of a person, who had handed over a two rupee currency notes to a friend to purchase a circus ticket, which the booking clerk found to be suspicious. In that case, the accused had stated in his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 313 of the new Criminal Procedure Code) that the accused had sold three quintals of tamarind to a person, who paid a sum of Rs.390/-and that he received currency note in question, when the purchaser paid a sum of Rs.390/-. The accused had also stated that he came to know for the first time that the note was counterfeit when he was interrogated by the police. Such are not the facts of the present case. Here, the accused had neither acknowledged that he had possessed or passed on the alleged currency notes nor had he claimed that the currency notes were not fake to his knowledge. In reply to most of the questions put in his statement under Section 313, the appellant gave the stock answer that it was false. Here, the accused had neither acknowledged that he had possessed or passed on the alleged currency notes nor had he claimed that the currency notes were not fake to his knowledge. In reply to most of the questions put in his statement under Section 313, the appellant gave the stock answer that it was false. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment in M. Mammutti (supra) to the effect that; "But the difficulty is that the prosecution has not put any specific question to the appellant in order to find out whether the accused knew that the notes were of such a nature". These observations have to be read in the context of the facts of that case where reply given by the accused in his statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code was referred to. There will be no occasion for the prosecution to put any question to the accused in criminal trial unless the accused steps in the witness box as a defence witness. Further, the case was in respect of a two rupee currency notes arising in the year 1979 and in respect of which the accused had given a plausible answer. The judgment may not be helpful in the present times when a systematic attempt of derailing economy of the country is being made by pushing high denomination currency notes in the country. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker V/s. State of Chhattisgarh reported at 2001 (9) SCC 642 . In that case, the accused had purchased a kilogram of mangoes costing Rs.5/-and had passed on fake note of Rs.100/-to the vendor, who doubted its genuineness. The vendor showed the notes to two other persons who also stated that it was a fake currency note and then the accused was handed over to police. In this context, after considering the provisions of Section 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code, the Court observed that the mens rea necessary for the offence under Section 489-B and 489-C is "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes to be forged or counterfeit". In this context, after considering the provisions of Section 489-B and 489-C of the Penal Code, the Court observed that the mens rea necessary for the offence under Section 489-B and 489-C is "knowing or having reason to believe the currency notes or banknotes to be forged or counterfeit". Without the aforementioned mens rea, selling, buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes or banknotes, is not enough to constitute offence under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code. There can be no doubt about the proposition laid down. It would be applicable to cases where the single forged note is passed on which the accused could explain, by saying that he did not know the note to be counterfeit. Here is case of a person who had tried to pass on fake note when he possessed 24 such other notes. Further, the search of the room, key where of was secured during the personal search of the appellant, revealed 75 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.1000/- and in the same search 44 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.500/-were found. Therefore, the judgment in Umashanker V/s. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) which is delivered in facts of that case would not be helpful to the case of the appellant. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly said that a judgment is an authority for what it decides. In view of this, there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the appellant was knowingly found in possession of almost 100 fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.1000/-, 44 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.500/-. 18. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a 22 year old young labourer from West Bengal would also show that he had no business to possess of such huge currency. 19. The learned Counsel for the appellant next submits that considering the age of the appellant sentence imposed is harsh. I have given a thought to this aspect. I do not find that sentence of RI of 7 years for an offence of pushing counterfeit currency which is derailing the economy of the country is harsh and in that view the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is light and does not call for interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed.