Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
Nafiz Alam Nurul Hudda Shaikh & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 354 of 2013
Decided On : 27-04-2018
For the Appellants :Nasreen Ayubi, Payoshi Roy i/b. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.V. Gavand, APP.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 489B and 489C read with 34 - Pay fine - Punishment - Police Inspector Mumbai received information from Informer two unknown persons are likely come near Reliance Energy Office Mumbai along with forged and counterfeit currency notes- Therefore Police Inspector called Police Inspector Police Inspector Assistant Police Inspector Police Head Constable in his chamber and shared information with them- It was decided to lay a trap for apprehending culprits- Accordingly two including were summoned- police team accompanied by witnesses then went to spot and laid a trap two persons arrived on spot on a motorcycle- Informant pointed out those persons to be suspects possessing counterfeit currency notes- They were accosted and apprehended by police -On making inquiry from both these persons by police team one of them disclosed his identity who is appellant/accused - His personal search resulted in recovery forged/counterfeit currency notes each denomination in two bundles apart from sundry items –Held, Now let us examine which of offences are proved against appellants/accused persons- Possession as well as selling buying receiving or trafficking in or use as genuine of any forged or counterfeit currency notes with requisite made punishable Indian Penal Code- Without such offences cannot be made out- Knowing or having reason to believe that notes are forged or counterfeit constitute of offences punishable under these Sections is mental state and it is difficult to produce tangible evidence to prove of offences punishable of Indian Penal Code- Such can be gathered from all surrounding circumstances which are brought on record from evidence of prosecution Therefore let us now examine whether consequent sentence is proper- It is well settled that it is duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner in which it was committed- sentencing court is expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with gravity of offence- sentence is required to be adequate just and proportionate with gravity and nature of crime -At same time circumstances of accused are also required to be kept mind while imposing sentence as one of objects of criminal justice system is to rehabilitate transgressors and criminals case in hand offence proved against appellants/accused persons is serious economic offence which actually destroys economy of State and is having large ramification- Therefore it cannot be said that appellants/accused persons are inappropriately sentenced by trial court for offences proved against them sentence imposed upon them is commensurate with gravity of offences held to be proved against them - Appeal dismissed
1. Appellants/Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, by this appeal are challenging the judgment and order dated 15th March 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.341 of 2011, thereby convicting them of offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 489B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they all are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months by each of them. For the offence punishable under Section 489C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, appellants/accused persons are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 6 months by each of them. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court.
2. Facts, in nutshell, leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused persons are thus :
(a) Police Inspector Kavalekar of the DCB CID Unit No.7, Mumbai, received information from the Informer that at about 6.30 p.m. of 8th March 2011, two unknown persons are likely to come near the Reliance Energy Office, Ghatkopar, Mumbai, along with forged and counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, Police Inspector Kavakelar, called Police Inspector Vatsa, Police Inspector Vyankat Patil (PW6), Assistant Police Inspector Jaywant Sankpal (PW5), Police Head Constable Bhaskar Kisanrao Chavan (PW1) etc., in his chamber and shared the information with them. It was decided to lay a trap for apprehending the culprits. Accordingly, two panchas including Abddul Sattar Sayyed Ali Shaikh (PW2) were summoned. The police team accompanied by panch witnesses then went to the spot and laid a trap. At about 7.05 p.m. of 8th March 2011, two persons arrived on the spot on a motorcycle. The Informant pointed out those persons to be the suspects possessing the counterfeit currency notes. They were accosted and apprehended by the police. On making inquiry from both these persons by the police team, one of them disclosed his identity as Nafiz Alam Shaikh, who is appellant/accused no.1. His personal search resulted in recovery of 200 forged/counterfeit currency notes, each of Rs.500/denomination, in two bundles, apart from sundry items. Another person disclosed his name as Mohd.Sadidul Haq. He is appellant/accused no.2. His personal search resulted in recovery of 200 forged/counterfeit currency notes, each of Rs.500/- denomination, in two bundles, apart from sundry items. The police noted down serial numbers of those currency notes and kept them in a polythene bag and sealed the same on the spot. Seizure Panchnama Exhibit 28 came to be prepared on 8th March 2011 itself on the spot in presence of PW2 Abddul Sattar Sayyed Ali Shaikh, seizing the counterfeit currency notes and other articles from the appellants/accused nos.1 and 2.
(b) PW1 Bhaskar Kisanrao Chavan, Police Head Constable, then lodged First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 19 at the Parksite Police Station, Mumbai, which resulted in registration of Crime No.105 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellants/accused persons Nafiz Alam Shaikh and Mohd.Sadidul Haq. Offence came to be registered by PW4 Bharat Gosavi, Assistant Sub-Inspector. Investigation of the crime was then transferred to the DCB, CID, Mumbai, and accordingly, Crime No.37 of 2011 came to be registered. The same came to be investigated by PW6 Vyankat Patil, Police Inspector.
(c) During the course of investigation, both appellants/accused nos.1 and 2 disclosed to the Investigator that they used to meet appellant/accused no.3 Asamul Shaikh in front of Kurla Railway Station. Accordingly, appellant/accused no.3 came to be arrested by police. On 9th March 2011, appellant/accused no.3 made a voluntary disclosure
