Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.
Karim Abdul Shaikh & Another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2016 with Interim Application No. 17 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Counterfeit Currency - Indian Penal Code - Section 489-B, Section 489-C
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for possessing counterfeit currency notes. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of fake currency notes from the accused. The accused challenged the conviction on the grounds that the report from the Currency Note Press, which was the basis of their conviction, should have been excluded from consideration as no explanation was sought from the accused in respect of the report during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report from the Currency Note Press should have been excluded from consideration as no explanation was sought from the accused in respect of the report during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had the knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit, which is essential for constituting the offence under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the report from the Currency Note Press and the establishment of mens rea for the offence under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure to seek an explanation from the accused regarding the report from the Currency Note Press during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the lack of evidence to establish the accused's knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order convicting the appellants were quashed and set aside. The bail bonds were cancelled, securities discharged, and any paid fine amount was to be refunded to the appellant-accused.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants-original accused nos.1 and 2 have questioned the correctness of judgment and order dated 26th February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.872/2013.
2. Accused no.1, Karim Abdul Shaikh is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. He has been also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Accused no.2-Rahul Gupta has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.
4. Pending trial, accused no.2-Mohammad Pintu Shaikh, passed away and therefore the case abates against him.
5. Pending trial, accused no.4, as it appears was discharged by the learned trial Court.
6. Prosecution’s case in brief is that, on 24th June, 2013, accused no.1-Karim Shaikh approached the first informant shop and asked for three cakes of bathsoap costing Rs.132/-. After taking the soaps, accused handed note of Rs.1,000/- denomination to the first informant. The first informant returned the balance amount of Rs.868/- to accused no.1. However, while he was leaving, the first informant suspected the genuineness of that currency note. He therefore called the accused and told him that the currency note delivered to him was ‘fake’. Thereupon, the accused Karim Shaikh returned him back the soap cake and demanded his currency note of Rs.1,000/- denomination. However, the first informant declined to return the note to him. In the circumstances, the accused tried to run away. The first informant-shopkeeper called the policemen and narrated the incident to them. In the meanwhile, accused no.1 was detained. On his personal search, currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination, four currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were found in his shirt pocket. The counterfeit currency notes were seized by drawing the panchanama followed by registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C. In the course of investigation, 130 fake currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were seized from the house of accused-Karim Shaikh as per the disclosure statement. That on the information revealed by accused no.1, the Investigating Officer arrested Rahul Gupta (accused no.2) and seized 85 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination from his house as per his disclosure statement. All fake and genuine currency notes were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik and the report was called.
7. Upon perusing the final report, accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. In consideration of evidence, the learned trial Court, convicted accused nos.1 and 2 as aforesaid, against which this appeal is preferred.
8. Heard Mr. Mali, learned Advocate appointed by this Court, Advocate Mr. Chavan for the appellant and learned APP for the State.
9. I have perused the prosecution evidence.
10. Before adverting to the arguments/contentions, of Mr. Mali, Learned Advocate for the appellant, it may be stated that, accused no.1 who was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C and sentenced to suffer 5 years and 3 years respectively, has undergone the sentences of five years; whereas, accused no.2 convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489-C and sentenced to suffer 3 years, was enlarged on bail pending Appeal.
11. Mr. Mali, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted, that report from the Currency Note Press at Exhibit-79, being admissible in evidence in terms of Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
