1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2009 Shri Tababali Shahadali Shaikh ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. ------ Mr. C.R. Mishra i/b C.R.S. Mishra & Co. for the applicant. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. ----- CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 17th January, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Applicant has been arrested in connection with the offence punishable under sections 489B, 489C, 120B, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. An information was received by the police that the applicant who is a vendor, selling coconuts is dealing in false currency notes. After the said information was received, police arranged a raiding party and after the provisions of section 100 were complied with by the police, a search was conduced. In the search, 24 currency notes of Rs 1000/- were found on the person of the applicant. He was immediately arrested and was interrogated. Upon interrogation, he disclosed the names of his two accomplices who were also dealing in counterfeit currency notes. After the raid was conducted on these two persons, huge quantity of counterfeit currency notes was found and the total number of fake currency notes was about 8000 and odd. The investigation was thereafter made. A report was obtained from Nashik Press and they gave an opinion that all these notes were counterfeit currency notes. The charge-sheet was thereafter filed and, in the charge-sheet, an allegation is that the applicant, alongwith others, had entered into conspiracy to circulate these currency notes in various ways. Alongwith the charge of conspiracy, section 34 was also included in the said charge-sheet. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently submitted that the Trial Court had erred in not granting 3 bail to the applicant. He submitted that the offence under section 489C is bailable offence. He submitted that there is no material on record to implicate the accused - applicant for an offence punishable under section 489B. He invited my attention to the FIR and submitted that these currency notes were found in possession of the applicant. He submitted that, it is inconceivable that a coconut vendor would use Rs 1000/- currency note since it was a currency note of highest denomination and it was not expected that a coconut vendor would give Rs 1000/- currency note to his customers for the purpose of giving change or for any other purpose. He submitted that, apart from that, there was no further material in the charge-sheet to indicate that the applicant had circulated these currency notes. He invited my attention to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 CRI.L.J. 502 in which the Apex Court has held that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Mammutti Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1705. He pointed out that in the said judgment the Apex Court has held that presumption that the accused knew that the notes in his possession were counterfeit notes cannot be drawn. It is held in the 4 said case that merely because counterfeit notes are found in possession of the accused, it cannot be presumed that he knew that the notes were counterfeit notes. It is further submitted that the Sessions Court had erred in rejecting the application of the applicant for bail on the ground that the applicant belonged to Zarkhand State. He submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai and that the observation of the Trial Court that he is permanent resident of Zarkhad is incorrect. 5. In the present case, the information was received by the Police that the applicant was dealing in circulation of counterfeit currency notes. Upon such information being received, a watch was kept on this applicant and, after the procedure which was laid down under section 100 of the Cr.P.C. for conducting search and seizure was followed, the applicant was apprehended, search was conducted and 24 counterfeit currency notes were found on his person. Upon interrogation, he disclosed the names of two other persons who were also doing the same business of circulating counterfeit currency notes. On this information which was given under section 27 of the Evidence Act, these two persons were also searched and a huge quantity of counterfeit notes were found in their possession The submission is 5 made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the applicant being a coconut vendor, it was not expected that he would use these currency notes for giving to his customers and, therefore, the only offence, if any, which was committed by the applicant was of possession and not of circulation and, therefore only section 489C would be attracted. This submission cannot be accepted. Firstly, it has to be noted that after the search was conducted, 24 counterfeit currency notes were found upon the specific information being received by the police about the activities of this applicant. It is understandable that if only possession of these 24 notes would have been found then, possibly, submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant that he was in possession of the said notes and therefore only section 489C is attracted, would have been correct. The matter does not stop there. The applicant has given information under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Apex Court in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya and others vs. Emperor reported in A.I.R. (34) 1947 Privy Council 67 has laid down guidelines regarding the admissibility of such evidence. Accordingly, when this information was given notes from other two persons were also seized. Therefore, submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant that these notes were only in his possession cannot be accepted since he 6 has specifically stated that these notes were given to him by the other accused. The presumption, therefore, has to be drawn that these notes were given for circulation and not merely for keeping them in his possession. Apart from that, a charge of conspiracy under section 120B is also levelled against the present applicant. Merely because a small part is played by the applicant, that would not absolve him of the act committed by the other accused. Even assuming for a moment that the applicant was not aware of the general conspiracy, there are catena of judgments of the Apex Court in which it has been held that even then such accused would be responsible for the acts of other accused. That being the position, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the applicant was found to be in possession of the counterfeit notes, will not absolve him of the offence committed under section 489C with which he is charged. Therefore, ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Mammutti (supra) on which the reliance is placed by the Counsel for the applicant will not apply to the facts of the present case. There cannot be any two opinions about the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra). However, in the present case, the offence with which the applicant is charged is of a very serious nature. Possession of counterfeit currency notes and their circulation has a 7 serious impact on the economy and the Society. Prosecution case is that a deliberate attempt has been made to de-stablilise the economy and which is a part of the larger offence which is being committed by the enemies of the State. That being the position, in this case, jail would be the only option left which would fall within the exceptions as laid down in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra). 6. The conduct of the applicant also has to be noticed here. The learned Sessions Judge after having pointed out that election card of the applicant indicated that he was a resident of Zarkhand State and that he was likely to abscond, offered to decide the case within 10 days as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that it was the right of the applicant to be released on bail and, therefore, he did not accept this offer which was given by the learned Sessions Judge. This indicates that the applicant was not interested in expeditious hearing of the trial but, possibly, wanted to take advantage of bail if granted so that he could flee from justice. 7. Under these circumstances application for bail is rejected. However, trail is expedited. Trial Court shall not be influenced by the 8 observations made by this Court in this order as they are prima facie in nature and made while deciding as to whether the applicant is entitled to get bail or not. The trial court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)