Nanhe Mukhia vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Appellant Nanhe Mukhia has appealed against his conviction and sentence, for offences, under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, awarded by the Sessions Court at Hamirpur.

Appellant was tried for the aforesaid offences, on the allegations that on 18th October, 2007, he went to Nadaun Township, in Hamirpur District, and purchased one cassette for Rs. 30/- from PW-1 Mukesh Kumar. He tendered a currency note of Rs. 500/-. Mukesh Kumar asked for exact amount, as he did not have the change of Rs. 500/-. Appellant told him that he did not have currency notes of smaller denomination. PW-1 Mukesh Kumar then went to one Ravi, who is running Chemist''s shop nearby, to get the currency note of Rs. 500/- changed into notes of smaller denomination. Said Ravi, on seeing the note, said that the same was not genuine. The currency note was then taken to a nearby Bank and shown to an official of the Bank, who confirmed that the same was not genuine.

Police was informed. Soon Assistant Sub Inspectors, Surjit Singh (PW-6) and Santokh Singh (PW-7) reached the spot. They recorded statement of PW-1 Mukesh Kumar, u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is Ex. PW-1/A. In the said statement, PW-1 Mukesh Kumar got recorded the aforesaid facts. Statement was sent to the Police Station for formal registration of the case against the appellant. Appellant''s person was searched, on the spot, by the abovenamed two Assistant Sub Inspectors, in the presence of PW-1 Mukesh Kumar, and 49 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each were recovered from one pocket of the pants he was wearing and currency notes of Rs. 350/- of different denominations, including five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each, were recovered from the other pocket of the same pants. The same were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex. PW-1/D. Appellant was arrested. 49 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each were sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory at Junga. Expert of the Laboratory, vide report Ex. PW-4/A, confirmed that the notes were counterfeit, because security features were missing from all of them.

During the course of trial, appellant denied that the counterfeit currency notes were recovered from him. He suggested to the Investigating Officer of the case, namely PW-7 Santokh Singh that he (the appellant) had been framed up at the instance of Bhulan Mukhia, a work contractor, with whom the appellant had been working and who owed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to him. PW-7 ASI Santokh Singh denied the suggestion. This suggestion was not put to other witnesses, namely PW-1 Mukesh Kumar and PW-6 ASI Surjit Singh, even though, in his own examination, u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated at the instance of contractor, Bhulan Mukhia, with the connivance of PW-1 Mukesh Kumar and police people.

Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was in possession of counterfeit currency notes, numbering 49 of the denomination of Rs. 500/- each, knowing that the said currency notes were counterfeit and also used one such note as genuine and, therefore, he had committed offences, under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced, for the aforesaid offences, as stated hereinabove.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the currency notes, in question, are counterfeit. The only question that arises is whether the currency notes were recovered from the appellant and he knew or had reason to know that the same were counterfeit and one such currency note he used as genuine to pay the price of cassette purchased from PW-1 Mukesh Kumar. Appellant denies that currency notes were recovered from him or that he tried to pass on one currency note to PW-1 Mukesh Kumar to pay him a sum of Rs. 30/-, on account of price of cassette.

PW-1 Mukesh Kumar very categorically testified that the appellant visited his place of business, around 4.30 or 4.45 p.m., on the relevant day, and purchased a cassette for Rs. 30/- and passed on a currency note of Rs. 500/-. He also stated that he asked the appellant to pay the price in smaller currency notes/coins, but he told that he did not have such notes or coins. No suggestion was put to the witness, in the cross-examination, that he had connived with Bhulan Mukhia, the contractor, with whom the appellant was employed, to falsely implicate the appellant. Therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid testimony of Mukesh Kumar. Otherwise also, the testimony of said Mukesh Kumar is corroborated by the earliest version, which he gave to the police, vide statement Ex. PW-1/A, as also by the testimony of PW-6 ASI Surjit Singh and PW-7 ASI Santokh Singh, both of whom testified, with one voice, that they had searched the person of the appellant in the presence of Mukesh Kumar and recovered currency notes, Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-50, on the search of a side pocket of his pants and on the search of the other side pocket of the pants currency notes of Rs. 350/-, including five notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each, were recovered. No suggestion was put to PW-6 Surjit Singh, on the lines of the defence plea that the appellant had been falsely implicated at the instance of his employer Bhulan Mukhia. From the fact that the defence plea was not suggested either to PW-1 Mukesh Kumar or PW-6 Surjit Singh, it is more than clear that the plea is an afterthought. It was suggested only to the Investigating Officer of the case.

The fact of recovery of five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each from another pocket of the appellant and his refusal to pay the price of cassette, out of those five currency notes to PW-1 Mukesh Kumar, despite his having told him that he did not have the smaller notes to pay balance, after deducting the price of Rs. 30/- from the currency note of Rs. 500/-, clearly shows that the appellant had the knowledge that the currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/-, which he was having in one of the pockets of his pants, were counterfeit.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant was in possession of 49 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- each and he had the knowledge that those currency notes were counterfeit and despite such knowledge he offered one currency note to PW-1 Mukesh Kumar to pay the price of the cassette. Hence, no fault can be found with the finding of the Sessions Court that the appellant is guilty of the offences, under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code.

As regards the sentence, it has come in evidence that the appellant was engaged only as a labourer at the relevant time. The fact has been testified by PW-7 Santokh Singh, Investigating Officer of this case. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is only a labourer and has been in jail ever since his arrest on 18th October, 2007, I feel that ends of justice would be met in case his sentence of substantive imprisonment is reduced, for both the offences, to the period of detention already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. With this modification in the sentence part of the judgment of the trial Court, appeal is dismissed.