Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1753 (JHR)

Kailash Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-09

RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard both the counsels. 2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.1.2003, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 204 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant was conviction under Sections 498-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as per the written report of the informant Ravish Kumar, PW-1, is that on 17.12.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. in the course of checking of the passengers detrained by 3232 DN at Exit Gate at Platform No. 1 he detected one passenger named Kailash Mandal without ticket and accordingly charged him to pay Rs. 84/- as excess fare and the accused handed over a note of Rs. 500/- which was found to be doubtful and forged by the informant as such he again demanded the note to be replaced. Then accused replaced the note with Rs. 500/- note but it was bearing the same number of Rs. 500/- note. Both the notes were bearing the same numbers and series as 8 CV 797269. Then the informant charge-sheeted the accused for travelling without ticket bearing charge-sheet No. 1776891 dated 17.12.2001 and handed over the two pieces of forged notes of Rs. 500/- along with the said accused person to the Rail Police, Jasidih. 4. On the basis of this written report, Jasidih Rail P.S. Case No. 018 of 2001 dated 17.12.2001 under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation was taken up. 5. After the investigation, charge-sheet no. 5 of 2002 dated 15.3.2002 under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused. Learned Railway Magistrate, Madhupur at Madhupur took the cognizance and committed the case of the Court of Sessions. 5. After the investigation, charge-sheet no. 5 of 2002 dated 15.3.2002 under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused. Learned Railway Magistrate, Madhupur at Madhupur took the cognizance and committed the case of the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, which were explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. Prosecution examined altogether four witnesses in support of its case. On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. PW-1 Ravish Kumar, Senior Ticket Collector, is the informant of the case. He deposed that on 17.12.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. he was on duty at Exit Gate at Platform No. 1 of Jasidih Railway Station as Senior Ticket Collector. In course of checking of the passengers of 3232 DN train, he detected one passenger named Kailash Mandal without ticket and asked him to pay Rs. 84/- as excess fare. The accused handed over a note of Rs. 500/- which was found to be doubtful as such he again demanded the note to be replaced, the accused replaced the note with one more note of Rs. 500/- but the both notes were bearing the same number. Then this witness charge-sheeted the accused and handed over the two pieces of suspicious notes along with the accused to G.R.P. Jasidih. During his evidence, he has proved the written report as Ext.1, charge-sheet as Ext.2 and signature on seizure list as Ext.3, 3/1, 3/2. 8. PW-2 Radha Ballabh Prasad was Chief Ticket Inspector, Jasidih Railway Station. He deposed that on 17.12.2001 at 7.00 a.m. when he came at Jasidih Railway Station on duty, the informant-Ravish Kumar told him that one man was detected by him without ticket, who in demand of charge delivered him Rs. 500/- forged currency note. The ticket-less passenger was handed over to the Jasidih Rail P.S. along with charge-sheet and written report by the informant. This witness has proved his signature in the seizure list which was already marked as Ext.3/1. 9. PW-3 Manoj Kumar was posted as Ticket Collector, Jasidih Railway Station on the date of occurrence. 500/- forged currency note. The ticket-less passenger was handed over to the Jasidih Rail P.S. along with charge-sheet and written report by the informant. This witness has proved his signature in the seizure list which was already marked as Ext.3/1. 9. PW-3 Manoj Kumar was posted as Ticket Collector, Jasidih Railway Station on the date of occurrence. He deposed that he was on duty at Main Gate at Platform No. 1 along with Ravish Kumar, Senior Ticket Collector and in the course of checking of the passengers, they detected one passenger Kailash Mandal without ticket. Then Ravish Kumar charged him to pay Rs. 84/- as excess fare on which the accused delivered a note of Rs. 500/- which was found to be doubtful, then accused delivered second note of Rs. 500/- and both notes were found to be of same digits and doubt was confirmed. Then they handed over the accused to the G.R.P. Jasidih along with both notes of Rs. 500/- denomination along with one bag containing cassettes and film posters. This witness has proved his signature in seizure list, which was already marked as Ext.3/2. 10. PW-4 Dhaneshwar Rabi Das is the Investigating Officer of the case. He sent seized notes to Government Note Press, Dewas (M.P.) for expert examination report, recorded the evidence and statements of all concerned witnesses in the case diary. He proved registration in written report as Ext.4, formal FIR as Ext.5, seizure list as Ext.6 seized two notes of Rs. 500/- denomination as Ext.1 and 1/1. The expert report of Government Note Press, Dewas (M.P.) was marked as Ext.8. 11. Mr. Ravi Prakash, counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it is an old case. At the time of occurrence, appellant was a young man, below 25 years. He has no criminal antecedent prior to the occurrence. Learned counsel has further submitted that initially appellant was travelling allegedly without ticket and therefore, offence should have been based on travelling without ticket. He was subsequently charged for use of forged currency or counterfeit notes, which are very much doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that allegation is actually false and fabricated because by his act, it is seen that when appellant had given one note, which was found to be doubtful by the railway authorities concerned, he produced another note. He was subsequently charged for use of forged currency or counterfeit notes, which are very much doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that allegation is actually false and fabricated because by his act, it is seen that when appellant had given one note, which was found to be doubtful by the railway authorities concerned, he produced another note. Learned counsel has further submitted that appellant was not aware that the currency notes were counterfeit in nature. Thus, appellant has been made victim by circumstances. Appellant had produced these notes before the railway authority. Learned counsel has further submitted that seizure is not conducted as per procedure and it is hit by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Railway Station is a crowded place with many people apart from authorities, there are other people with jobs like selling items but, no one was made seizure witness, therefore, it is hit by Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel also submitted that the question that ought to have been put to the appellant regarding travelling without ticket, that was initial offence and has also been indicated in the written report was not asked, but, rather he was charged for the offence regarding counterfeit notes under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has further submitted that none of the experts, who certified the notes being counterfeit, has been examined. Therefore, the evidence, regarding counterfeit notes. cannot be sustained. Counsel for the appellant has finally submitted that appellant had no criminal antecedent prior to the alleged occurrence. Appellant has been in custody from 17.12.2001 till 7.5.2003 and at this juncture, after a such long time of facing rigors of trial and various hardships, he has already undergone reasonable amount of punishment. It will be futile to send him against to custody. On the basis of custody, hardships and punishment already undergone, case of the appellant may be considered. 12. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that, no doubt, trial proceeded on the basis of counterfeit notes and he was travelling without ticket and during checking, when he was asked for tickets, he had given forged or counterfeit currency note and so offence is related to the similar circumstance. 12. Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that, no doubt, trial proceeded on the basis of counterfeit notes and he was travelling without ticket and during checking, when he was asked for tickets, he had given forged or counterfeit currency note and so offence is related to the similar circumstance. He has not been tried for ticket-less journey that has been lacking, but, he should not be allowed to be scoot free for the offence of using counterfeit notes. Learned APP has further submitted that the experts are not required to be called for because the document Ext.8 that has been brought on record is original document. Learned APP has further submitted that issue of seizure is not very important when the crime is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned APP has further submitted that appellant was aware that the currency notes were counterfeit in nature. Since the offence is serious in nature, he does not deserve to be acquitted and impugned order of conviction passed by the learned Court below requires no interference. REASONS 13. Having heard counsel for both the sides, gone through the records of the case and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, I find from the evidence appearing on record that appellant had given two notes of Rs. 500/- bearing the same prefixes and numbers to the informant Ext.8, which is the expert report, tells that both the notes were counterfeit notes and hence the appellant was using and was in possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes. Hence, the judgment of conviction of the appellant dated 30.1.2003, passed by the learned Court below is upheld. Considering the fact that appellant was a young man, during the time of occurrence, below 25 years, he had no criminal antecedent prior to the alleged occurrence and he has already undergone punishment of about one and half years period, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed with the above modification in sentence. He is discharged from his liability of bail bond. Appeal allowed.