IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 327/2008 Jitender Singh Shandu @ Vicky ………Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent Mr. R.S. Nagarkoti, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 2nd November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2008, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 40/2007, State v. Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky & Another. The said trial pertains to Crime No. 1670/2006, Police Station Kathgodam for the offences punishable under Section 489C, 489D & 489E. By the said judgment and order, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky and Jagdish Chandra @ J.C. Dhiman under Section 489C, 489D & 489E and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with fine of rupees twenty thousand each for the offence of Section 489D. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further two years’ rigorous imprisonment. For the offence of Section 489C, each of the accused persons were sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment, and for the offence of Section 489E, they were sentenced only with a fine of rupees one hundred, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one month’s imprisonment. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2 2. Feeling disgruntled with the aforesaid judgment and order, accused Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky has preferred this appeal, while another accused Jagdish Chandra @ J.C. Dhiman has so far not preferred any appeal. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Brief Holder for the State. Also perused the trial court record. 4. The incident relates back to the date 15.11.2006, when at about 4.30 pm, the police personnel of Kathgodam Police Station nabbed the accused persons near NHPC Guest House located at Kathgodam city. A large number of counterfeit currency-notes along with several equipments like printing machine, apt papers for preparing the counterfeit currency-notes, seal of Mahatma Gandhi for using to emboss the counterfeit currency-notes were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 7.30 pm after completing the necessary formalities as prescribed under the Code. The investigation was conducted and chargesheet was submitted for the abovesaid offences against both the accused persons. 5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. After recording the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC. They were offered opportunity to produce their defence. In defence, two defence witnesses were examined by the accused persons. 6. Having heard the arguments and after appreciating the evidence, the learned trial court convicted 3 both the accused persons and sentenced them as stated above. 7. The learned Counsel for the accused appellant has read the entire evidence produced by the prosecution as has been discussed by the learned trial Judge while basing his finding of conviction. On perusal of the entire evidence, it is amply clear that as many as three fact witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW1 is S.I. Umesh Mallick, PW2 is S.I. Mohd. Jahir Khan and PW3 is Head Constable Dan Singh. They all were present at the time of huge recovery allegedly made from the accused persons. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot after sealing all the alleged counterfeit currency-notes. They all have deposed identically before the trial court proving the recovery of the counterfeit currency-notes from the accused persons as well as several other instruments, mentioned above, which were meant for forging the currency-notes. 8. PW4 is Constable Deewan Singh, who had gone to the laboratory based at Nasik (Maharastra) on 22.4.2007 taking all the recovered counterfeit currency-notes. This witness has proved the permission, which was necessarily required from the concerned Magistrate, for taking the said currency-notes to the laboratory. 9. PW5 is S.I. Hari Ram Arya, who has conducted part of the investigation, which was completed by another S.I. PW6 S.K. Pandey. Mr. Pandey submitted the chargesheet before the trial court, which has been duly proved by this witness. 4 10. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the allegedly recovered counterfeit currency-notes were sent thrice to the laboratory at Nasik, but this fact has not been categorically mentioned in the record of the trial court. Now, he wants to produce some information in this regard procured by him under the Right to Information Act. But at this stage, the accused cannot be permitted to take a new ground of defence before this Court. Due opportunity was extended to the accused by the trial Judge after recording the statement under Section 313 CrPC, but at that opportune moment, he did not use his right, which he now wants to exercise before this Court. However, even if the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is considered for a moment, then also the entire prosecution story, which has been duly proved by the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence, cannot be thrown away merely by placing the reliance upon the submission of the learned Counsel for the defence. 11. It has also been pleaded that the police did not recover any bus or train tickets or original currency-notes from the possession of the accused persons, while accused Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky is a resident of Punjab, and he was not supposed to be present at Kathgodam (district Nainital) without possessing any bus or train ticket or original currency-notes. By arguing this, learned Counsel wants to insist that the alleged recovery was, in fact, fake and planted. This argument is also not sufficient because after completing the journey, a passenger is not expected to preserve the bus or train ticket all the time with him. The absence of recovery of any original currency-notes is also not so material so as to belie the whole prosecution story. 5 12. One defence witness Mangat Kumar (DW1) has deposed before the trial court that one person, namely, Jitender had stayed in his hotel named Sahara situated at Mata Rani Chowk in Ludhiyana (Punjab) from 11.11.2006 to 13.11.2006. Even if this argument is accepted for a moment, then also the presence of this accused person on 15.11.2006 at 4 pm at Kathgodam (district Nainital) is not improbable. Two days’ time is more than sufficient to reach a person from Ludhiyana to Kathgodam. 13. It has also been contended that a photographer Ajay Kumar (DW2) has deposed that he had taken the photographs of the allegedly recovered counterfeit currency-notes on 16.11.2006, whereas the fact is that the police had sealed the said counterfeit currency-notes just after the recovery on 15.11.2006. Thus, this argument also does not hold much water because this photographer was examined before the trial court after one and half year of the incident. So, it may not every time possible for a photographer to meticulously remember a particular date related to a particular case after lapse of such a considerable period of time. 14. Learned Brief Holder for the State has argued that recovery of huge counterfeit currency-notes to the tune of rupees five lakhs was made from the possession of the accused persons along with several instruments meant for forging the same. Such an activity, if not dealt with properly, may jeopardise the entire economy of the State. Had the posse of the police personnel intended to falsely implicate the accused persons, only a few counterfeit currency-notes were enough. There was not need to plant 6 such a huge amount of counterfeit currency-notes to the tune of rupees five lakhs along with several equipments used in forging the same. This Court does agree with the argument of the learned Brief Holder. Accused appellants were not nabbed only with the huge amount of counterfeit currency-notes, but several instruments, used in forging the same, were also recovered from their possession at the same time, and these cannot be said to be planted at the instance of the police. 15. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The learned trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the shallow defence holding the accused persons guilty. 16. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant are hereby upheld. The impugned judgment and order dated 8.10.2008, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Haldwani, District Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 40/2007, State v. Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky & Another, is affirmed. The accused appellant Jitender Singh Sandhu @ Vicky is already in jail. He will serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the lower court for compliance. Lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 2.11.2011 Prabodh