State vs Naresh Jain & Ors

S.P.Garg, J

The instant leave petition has been filed by the State to file appeal against a judgment dated 19.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions

Case No.43/2011 registered under Sections 489B/489C IPC at PS Special Cell vide FIR No.5/2005. It is contested by the respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Respondent No.1 - Naresh Jain was acquitted by the Court primarily

noting certain discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence and the source of information received by the investigating agency for his

apprehension. The Trial Court did not believe the statements of the official witnesses regarding the recovery of the counterfeit currency notes from

the possession of the respondent No.1 as they had given inconsistent conflicting versions. The Trial Court did not believe the statements of the

individuals who had claimed that fake currency notes were given to them by the respondent No.1.

On perusal of the file, it reveals that it was the specific case of the prosecution that the respondent No.1 was apprehended at the spot where he had

arrived in his Honda City car. Counterfeit currency notes to the tune of `4 lacs were recovered from the possession of the respondent No.1. The fake

currency notes and the Honda City car were seized by the police. Subsequently, several witnesses PWs-1 to 5 and 17 arrived at the Police Station and

informed the investigating agency that the respondent No.1 had given them fake currency notes. The fake currency notes given / received by them

were handed over to the police and were seized. The only defence of the respondent No.1 in 313 Cr.P.C. statement was that he was falsely

implicated by the investigating agency as on 03.01.2005, he was called by SI Umesh Barthwal at his office at Lodi Colony Special Cell to join the

investigation in some case. When he enquired about his detention during night without any cause, SI Umesh misbehaved with him and did not allow

him to talk to his relatives. When he threatened to report the matter to the senior officers, Mr.Barthwal became aggressive and implicated him in this

case. This defence requires to be examined.

Statements of the police officials coupled with independent public witness need re-appreciation by this Court while considering the appeal.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, this Court finds sufficient reasons to grant leave to the State to

impugn the judgment recording acquittal of respondent No.1 - Naresh Jain.

Regarding respondents No.2 and 3 Harish Narain and Sudhir Kumar, respectively, apparently there was no cogent and worthwhile evidence on

record to base conviction against them. Both these respondents were charged for commission of offence under Section 120B IPC. It has come on

record that both these respondents were in custody in some other case at Kolkata. Only evidence that has emerged against them was that they had

delivered the fake currency notes to respondent No.1 - Naresh Jain. No independent evidence, however, surfaced on record during investigation if on

a specific date the fake currency notes were delivered by respondents No.2 to 3 to the respondent No.1, and if so, where and for what consideration.

Since there is no clinching evidence against respondents No.2 & 3, no sufficient ground is made out for grant of leave to challenge their acquittal in

appeal.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed and the State is granted leave to file appeal against respondent No.1 â€" Naresh Jain

only. Leave petition qua respondents No.2 & 3 stands dismissed.

CRL.A. /2018 (to be numbered)

For final disposal, list on 9th July, 2018.