Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 132 (HP)

Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2013-02-28

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J The appellant has challenged his conviction under Sections 120-B, 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). 2. The prosecution case is that on 9.10.2010 at around 4 p.m. PW1 HHC Bhajan Singh, PW3 HHC Bir Singh and PW2 HHC Jiya Lal were on patrolling duty at Chirgaon Bazar. They spotted two persons roaming under suspicious circumstances, carrying bags/rucksacks in their hands. They approached them and asked them about their antecedents, at which both tried to run away. The police party apprehended them and took them to the police station where they could not produce any proof of their identity etc. On inquiry, they disclosed their names as Ramesh (appellant herein) and Nand Lal, both residents of Betya in Bihar. 3. Search of their bags was conducted. 17 currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from the pocket of Ramesh and 332 currency notes of Rs.500/- from the backpack. In addition, 8 currency notes of Rs.1000/- were also recovered. In all a sum of Rs.1,82,500/- was recovered. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the personal search of Nand Lal accused one currency note of Rs.500/-, four currency notes of Rs.100/-, one currency note of Rs.50 and six currency notes of Rs.10/- were recovered. I am not adverting to the other recovery made from the accused since the case of the prosecution is that this currency recovered from the accused was fake. 4. In order to prove its case that the currency was fake/counterfeited and not genuine, the prosecution relied upon the reports of the State Forensic Science Laboratory Himachal Pradesh, Junga, Ex.PA and the Currnecy Note Press, Nashik Raod, Maharashtra, Ex. PB. Adverting to the first report Ex. PA, the Assistant Director opines that all the exhibits of this case have been carefully and thoroughly examined with the scientific aids viz. VSC 2000, Stereo Microscope, CVM, Magnifying glass etc. The exhibits marked as Q-1 to Q-366 were all found to be not genuine but counterfeit as the security features were found absent in all the exhibits. In Exhibit PB a detailed analysis has been rendered by the press stating : “Forgery Case Inward details:- C.N.P. Dy. No. : 57/11 Date: 29.01.2011 Crime No. : 66/10 Police Station : Chirgaon Distt. Shimla. Received from : The Supdt. Of Police, Shimla-1, Himachal Pradesh. In Exhibit PB a detailed analysis has been rendered by the press stating : “Forgery Case Inward details:- C.N.P. Dy. No. : 57/11 Date: 29.01.2011 Crime No. : 66/10 Police Station : Chirgaon Distt. Shimla. Received from : The Supdt. Of Police, Shimla-1, Himachal Pradesh. Letter No. 3036: 3036 dated 19.01.2011. Material Receipt details: Received infact in sealed condition in one paper envelope bearing five seals alongwith three inner cloth pullindas with 9 seals each. Received by hand through Sh. Bhajan Singh, HHC-268. Details of notes received: Denomination : Rs. 500/- New M.G. Design (OVI) : Rs. 1000/- New M.G. Design (OVI) Prefix & Serial No. : Rs. 500/- 7BK-222886 and other 356 notes: 357 notes. Rs. 1000/-9 BL-881044 and other 08 notes: 09 notes. Total No. of Notes: 357 + 09 =366 Notes. Examination details:- All the referred suspected notes are examined here in detail by comparing with genuine specimen note with the help of modern scientific instruments and our observation/conclusion is as under:- Cut size of the Notes:- Length : Correct. Width: Correct. Paper :- Not Genuine. Main watermark :- Imitated Security thread:- Imitated. Paper thickness :- Same as that of genuine note paper. Printing Ink colours:- Ink shades are not matching. Colour Registration:- Note Correct. Numbering :- Not as per the genuine note. Quality of Printing:- ON FRONTS:- > The Intaglio printing for the text is absent. > “OVI” effect for the numeral “500” /”1000” in the centre is absent. > R.B.I. seal lacks sharpness and fine details of Ashoka Pillar are missing. ON BACKS: > Tint design lacks sharpness and pri9nting ink colours do not match with the genuine note. Conclusion: The referred suspected notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs.1000/- deno are “Counterfeit Notes,” due to the above mentioned reasons and absence of other covert security features of relevant design. Rubber stamp of CNP is affixed on each note in token of examination and signed intermittently and on top and bottom note of each bundle. Note:- The said report is self explanatory and kindly admit the same as evidence Under Section 292/293 Chapter XXIII C.R.P.C. 1973 (No. 2 of 1974). This forgery is classified as: NMGD/YVR/7 NMGM/YVR/7 Nashik Road. Sd/- (A.C. Kanungo) Asstt. Works Manager, For General Manager Currency Note Press, Nashik Road (M.S.).” This is the main stay of the prosecution case. 5. Note:- The said report is self explanatory and kindly admit the same as evidence Under Section 292/293 Chapter XXIII C.R.P.C. 1973 (No. 2 of 1974). This forgery is classified as: NMGD/YVR/7 NMGM/YVR/7 Nashik Road. Sd/- (A.C. Kanungo) Asstt. Works Manager, For General Manager Currency Note Press, Nashik Road (M.S.).” This is the main stay of the prosecution case. 5. It has been urged before me by learned counsel appearing for the appellant (a) that no recovery was effected from accused Ramesh and that the evidence of PW1 HHC Bhajan Singh, PW2 HHC Jia Lal and PW3 HHC Bir Singh cannot be relied upon for the reasons that they are police witnesses and require corroboration from independent source. (b) It has also been urged that Ex.PA and Ex.PB do not in any manner link the accused with the recovery of the currency. The recovery was made with Ex.PW1/A which was witnessed by PW1 HHC Bhajan Singh and PW HHC Jia Lal. I have gone through the evidence of these witnesses and I do not find anything in the cross-examination of these witnesses to suggest that this currency in fact was planted upon them. It has been held more then once that merely because the prosecution case consists of police witnesses is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. It is not the rule of the law that police officials do not state the truth and are only interested in securing conviction of the accused by hook or by crook. This principle has been settled in a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court inter alia in Anil versus State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 589 , Pattu Lal vs. State of Punjab (1996) 8 SCC 228 , Abdul Majid vs. State of Gujrat (2003) 10 SCC 198, Balabir Singh vs. State (1996)11 SCC 139 , Girja Prasad vs. State of H.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625 and Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 . Conviction can be based on the evidence of the police officials though the rule of prudence requires a careful scrutiny of the evidence. 6. On the evidence on record, it is clear that (a) accused and Nand Lal were in Chirgaon Bazar and that they were taken to the police station, (b) that they were holding bags/rucksack from which recovery was made. 6. On the evidence on record, it is clear that (a) accused and Nand Lal were in Chirgaon Bazar and that they were taken to the police station, (b) that they were holding bags/rucksack from which recovery was made. I find nothing on record to suggest that the accused/appellant has been able to prove that the recovery has not been effected from him. There is also no evidence to suggest that possession of the currency notes was not conscious or that such currency notes had in fact been acquired/accepted by them through legitimate source and that they were not in a position to have detected that the notes were in fact forged. Considering from any angle, I do not find that the evidence of the prosecution is not trustworthy and that offences have not been proved. 7. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly rejected. 8. Adverting to the sentence, I find that the learned trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in addition to payment of fine. On the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, I direct that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The period of detention already undergone by the accused before, during the trial and after conviction shall be set off against this sentence. The appellant shall be released from the custody on completion of three years of sentence, if he is not wanted in any other case. 9. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. This judgment does not in any manner pronounce on the case of Nand Lal accused.