Nandu, Nand Kumar Sinha @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Chhattisgarh

As above mentioned appeals arise out of same incident, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The above mentioned three appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2010 passed by

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, (CG) in Session Case No.27/2009, wherein the said Court convicted all the three appellants for commission

of offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for the three years and to pay

fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations to each of the appellants for having in their possession forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes,

knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.11.2008 in the night the police officer of Crime Branch Raipur received information that the appellants are

in possession of counterfeit currency notes and other articles. The officer enquired and seized the currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination 26 in

number from appellant Santosh Markandey, 31 in number from appellant Nandu @ Nand Kumar Sinha and 7 in number from appellant Purushottam.

He also seized other articles like computer, printer, scanner, cutter, scale, plain photo copy paper and ink during investigation. The appellants were

charge sheeted and after completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under:-

(i) The currency notes were not produced before the trial Court and the evidence of the expert who examined currency notes has not been adduced.

(ii) As the notes were not exhibited as article during evidence the same is not part of the evidence, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not

sustainable.

(iii) Possession and knowledge that the currency notes were counterfeit, is necessary ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 489C of the

IPC but the same is not established before the trial Court.

(iv) The prosecution witnesses have improved their version before the trial Court and therefore, they are not reliable and the finding of the trial Cort is

liable to be reversed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on proper marshaling of evidence and

the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

Assistant Sub Inspector Sevak Bairag (PW-8) deposed that he seized 15 notes of Rs.100/- denomination having serial No.5pm661166 and 11 notes

of same denomination having serial No.5pm661155 from appellant Santosh when he produced the same after removing it from his pocket. He further

deposed that he seized 17 notes of Rs.100/- denomination having serial No.5pm661166 and 14 notes of same denomination having serial

No.5pm661155 from appellant Nandu and seized four notes of Rs.100/- denomination having serial number 5pm661166 and 3 notes having same serial

number 5pm661155 from appellant Purushottam. From the evidence of this witness, whose version is supported by the version of ASI RS Giri (PW-6),

it is established that 26 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were seized from appellant Santosh and 31 number of Rs.100/- denomination was

seized from appellant Nandu and 7 number of Rs.100/-denomination from appellant Purushottam and in all 64 currency notes were seized from the

appellants. Version of these witnesses is subjected to searching cross-examination but they were firm in their material point. From the evidence of

ASI RS Giri (PW-6) it is established that seized of currency notes were sent for examination to General Manager, Reserve Bank and as per the

report (Ex-P/33) currency notes were counterfeit notes. From the evidence of direct evidence and report of the expert it is established that all the

appellants were in possession of the counterfeit currency notes.

It is established that the appellants were in possession of counterfeit currency notes and it is for them to explain the source or receiving the

currency notes, but all the appellants did not explain anything and their version is mere denial which is merit-less. In absence of explanation it can be

presumed that they had reason to believe that seized currency notes are counterfeit and when they are in possession of the said counterfeit notes, it

can be presumed that they kept the same to use as genuine.

The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and came to a conclusion that the offence under Section 489C iPC is established

against the appellants and this court has no reason to record a contrary finding. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under

Section 489C is hereby affirmed.

Heard on the point of sentence. From the record it appears that appellant Santosh suffered jail sentence from 23.11.2088 to 22.10.2010 i.e. for one

year and 11 months, appellant Nandu suffered jail sentence from 23.11.208 to 22.3.2010 i.e. for one year and four months and appellant Purushottam

suffered jail sentence from 23.11.2008 to 05.5.2010 i.e. one year and five months. Looking to the material available on record, this court is of the view

that ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants while

maintaining the fine amount.

Accordingly, all the three appels are allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under Section 489-C of IPC is affirmed. Now the appellants are

sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount shall remain intact.