Shri Shish Ram vs The State (NCT)

A.K. Pathak, J.—Appellant has been convicted u/s 489-B IPC by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 16th December, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure has also been given to the Appellant. That is how Appellant is before this Court by way of present appeal.

Prosecution case as unfolded is that on 26th September, 1998, at about 4 pm, Appellant had gone to the shop of complainant Shyam Lal, who was doing "Money Exchange" business at Chandni Chowk. He gave him Rs. 10,000/- in the form of currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. He requested him to exchange the same with currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination. Complainant suspected that the currency notes were fake, accordingly, he showed the same to his friend Purshottam Das, who was also engaged in same business. Purshottam Das confirmed that the currency notes were fake. Constable Yoginder, who was on duty in the area, was informed about this fact by the complainant. On seeing Constable Yoginder, Appellant started running. Constable Yoginder chased the Appellant and apprehended him.

Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "Investigating Officer"), who was present in the area, also reached the spot and met Constable Yoginder. He recorded statement of complainant Shyam Lal on the basis whereof FIR No. 232/1998 under Sections 120-B/489-B/489-C IPC was registered. Appellant was arrested. Currency notes were seized. Roles of co-accused, who are not party to this appeal, are not discussed herein.

In his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure Appellant has denied prosecution story. He claimed having been falsely implicated.

Complainant Shyam Lal has been examined as PW3. Purshottam Das has been examined as PW2. Both these witnesses have not identified the Appellant in Court as the same person who had tendered counterfeit currency notes worth Rs. 10,000/- in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. They have also denied that Appellant was apprehended by Constable Yoginder in their presence. PW2 has deposed that on 26th September, 1998 Shyam Lal came to his shop and asked him to exchange Rs. 10,000/- in the shape of currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each. On checking the packet he realized that the same were fake. Thereafter, he and Shyam Lal came out of their shop and informed this fact to Constable Yoginder who was on duty in the area. Fake currency notes were also handed over to him. The person, who had come to the shop of Shyam Lal and had handed over the fake currency notes, tried to run away when the fake currency notes were handed to Constable Yoginder. PW2 further deposed that he cannot identify that person now. PW3 Shyam Lal has deposed that 2-3 persons had come to his shop on the fateful day and handed over him loose currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each for exchanging the same with currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. He suspected these currency notes to be fake. He showed these currency notes to his neighbor Chaman Lal who also suspected the same to be fake. He then handed over the currency notes to one Purshottam Das, who was also carrying on same business. He deposed that he did not know what happened with the currency notes or to the person who had come to exchange the currency notes. He deposed that no one was apprehended by the police in his presence. He did not recognize the Appellant as the same person who had come to his shop and had handed over the packet of currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each. He also did not identify the seized currency notes to be the same which were handed over to him. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the APP but nothing could be elicited from him which can go in favour of prosecution version and against the Appellant.

Constable Yoginder was examined as PW1. He has deposed that he was present near the shop No. 1238 of Shyam Lal, who was dealing in exchanging the old notes. Shyam Lal told him that one person was having forged currency notes. Appellant was also present there. But on seeing him Appellant started running. He gave a chase to him and apprehended him. In the meanwhile, Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar came there and recorded statement of complainant Shyam Lal. Currency notes were seized. Appellant was arrested. Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar has been examined as PW8. Trial Court has found the testimonies of PW1 and PW8 trustworthy, reliable and sufficient enough to convict the Appellant.

In my view, Trial Court was not right in convicting the Appellant on the shaky evidence adduced on record which was not sufficient to prove the complicity of Appellant in the crime beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. PW2 Purshottam Das and PW3 Shyam Lal have not identified the Appellant. Appellant was not arrested in their presence since both of them have deposed that on seeing the police personnel the person who had given the counterfeit currency notes ran away. Constable gave a chase and apprehended him. No money was recovered from the Appellant after his arrest. Who handed over the currency notes to Constable Yoginder has also remained unproved as PW2 and PW3 have not supported the prosecution version on this point. PW3 has deposed that he did not know as to what happened to the currency notes. He deposed that he had handed over the currency notes to Chaman Lal and then to P.D. Gupta. Chaman Lal has not been examined. PW2 has deposed that currency notes were given to Constable Yoginder. However, PW1 Constable Yoginder has deposed that currency notes were given by PW3 Shyam Lal.

In view of this sketchy evidence, Trial Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in his acquittal.

In view of above discussions, appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. His bail bond/surety bond discharged.

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.