Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1384 (PNJ)

Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana

2013-10-22

Inderjit Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.:- Appellant Parveen Kumar has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2003 and order of sentence dated 10.02.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 489-C IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3½ years under the aforesaid Section. However, appellant has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 489-B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.01.2002, when Sub Inspector Azad Singh alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty, he received a secret information against the accused that he was having counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- in his possession and he was present at Jundla Gate, Karnal for circulating the same. On receiving the said information, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Then the police party raided the spot and apprehended the accused. On his personal search, ten counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each were recovered. The said currency notes were taken into police possession. Accused was arrested and during interrogation when the accused was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement that on 24.01.2002 he had twenty six counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered the same. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court. 3. On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Mohinder Kumar, D.I. Karnal, who mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW2 Head Constable Randhir Singh, who was posted as MMHC in Police Station City Karnal, on 22.01.2002, deposed regarding depositing one envelope containing ten counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each with him. He also deposed regarding depositing 26 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each on 24.01.2002. He also deposed regarding depositing 26 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each on 24.01.2002. He deposed that he handed over these currency notes on 13.02.2002 to Constable Lakhwant Singh for depositing the same in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. This witness also deposed that sample seal was also deposited by the Investigating officer. He (PW2) also deposed that the envelopes were sealed with the seal of ‘AS’. PW3 Constable Lakhwant Singh mainly deposed regarding depositing the parcel, containing 36 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each, in the office of Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. PW4 ASI Bal Kishan mainly deposed regarding registering the FIR Ex.PB after receiving ruqa Ex.PA. He also deposed regarding delivering the special report to Illaqa Magistrate etc. through Constable Balbir Singh. PW5 Head Constable Joginder Singh deposed regarding the investigation as he was with the police party headed by Sub Inspector Azad Singh. PW6 Head Constable Jagdish Chander mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement Ex.PE made by accused during interrogation and also regarding recovery of 26 counterfeit currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each which were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PF. PW7 Sub Inspector Azad Singh, Investigating Officer of this case, mainly deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in the present case. PW8 Gulshan Rai, Assistant Director (Documents), Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, proved his report Ex.PM after examining currency notes and in the said report, it is stated that these notes were found counterfeit currency notes. 5. At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded that a false case was registered against him as the police wanted to ruin his employer Rishi Pal Arya, owner and Editor of weekly newspaper ‘National Service’. He was falsely implicated in this case due to this reason. He is innocent. Even he did not know the distinction between genuine notes and counterfeit notes. 6. No evidence was led in defence. 7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above. 8. He was falsely implicated in this case due to this reason. He is innocent. Even he did not know the distinction between genuine notes and counterfeit notes. 6. No evidence was led in defence. 7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above. 8. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that no independent witness was joined and examined by the police while making personal search of the accused and also while recovering the currency notes from the house of accused as per his disclosure statement. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that appellant has been falsely implicated and defence version is more probable. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that currency notes were not sealed, as deposed by PW2 Head Constable Randhir Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version and the appeal should be accepted and appellant should be acquitted accordingly. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for reduction of sentence. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. The PWs have consistently deposed regarding recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the appellant. There is no cogent evidence on record to show any enmity or motive of the police officials against the appellant-accused. Learned State counsel further contended that no witness was examined in defence, therefore, defence version has not been proved. He contended that there is nothing on the record to show the false implication of the accused. Therefore, learned State counsel contended that there being no merit in the appeal and it should be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. 11. From the record, I find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. PW7 Sub Inspector Azad Singh, Investigating Officer and two other police officials have consistently deposed regarding recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the appellant. It is settled law that testimony of police official is as good as of any other witness unless any enmity or motive of police official to falsely implicate the accused is alleged and proved on the record. It is settled law that testimony of police official is as good as of any other witness unless any enmity or motive of police official to falsely implicate the accused is alleged and proved on the record. There are only suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness has been examined to prove any enmity or motive of the police officials against the accused. Even there is nothing on the record as to why the police official(s) wanted to ruin Rishi Pal Arya, Editor of the newspaper, who is stated to be employer of the accused. As there is no cogent evidence on record to prove any enmity or motive of the police officials, therefore, only on the ground of their official status, their statements cannot be discarded. PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There are no material contradictions or material improvements in their statements which may go to the root of the case. On the mere fact that no independent witness was examined while making recovery of counterfeit currency notes from the house of accused, no reasonable doubt can exist on this ground in the prosecution version. Similarly, this fact also does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution version that container, from which counterfeit currency notes were recovered, was not taken into police possession. Container was not the incriminating article and if it is not taken into police possession, it will not effect the prosecution case. PW2 Head Constable Randhir Singh has stated in chief-examination that envelopes were sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘AS’ and the sample seal was also deposited by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, perusal of the chief-examination as well as cross-examination of this witness shows that there were three seals on each parcel and the number of notes were written on the envelopes. So, it cannot be held that the parcels were prepared without seal. Report Ex.PM prepared and proved by PW8 Gulshan Rai, Assistant Director (Documents), Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. It is in the evidence that the appellant-accused made disclosure statement and got recovered 26 counterfeit currency notes from his house and the said notes were contained in a container. This fact itself shows that appellant was having the knowledge that these currency notes are fake one. It is in the evidence that the appellant-accused made disclosure statement and got recovered 26 counterfeit currency notes from his house and the said notes were contained in a container. This fact itself shows that appellant was having the knowledge that these currency notes are fake one. Otherwise, as per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.PM, which is proved by PW8 Gulshan Rai, Assistant Director (Documents), these notes were prepared from the coloured dot-matrix printer. These facts itself show the knowledge of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant cited 2005 (2) Criminal CC 580 (Bombay High Court) titled as Shakil Ahmed Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra. 12. I have gone through the said citation. This citation having distinguished facts will not apply in this case as in that case even the report of expert has not been proved on the record which is not the case in the case in hand. 13. There is nothing on the record to show the false implication of the accused in the present case. Rather, the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant-accused. As such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are upheld. 14. As regarding alternative contention for reduction of sentence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the facts that the occurrence took place in January 2002 and appellant is suffering due to this for the last 12 years; the appellant was a young boy of the age of 26 years at the time of occurrence and there is no report that he has committed the same nature of offence again during this period, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to two years. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in sentence. Since the appellant is on bail, granted by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2003, therefore, he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities to complete remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authorities shall proceed against him in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------