Hi‘i-i EO‘tiRT OF CHEATTISGARH AT BIL ’PU Crim 13a! Ancgeal No; 361 of 2005 " APEELLAM l g rkFtta § Rajendra K43 RESFGNBE: T Sam of Cku‘iatt‘isgarh D h hirendra Misra Judgment post for I'M i 1—2007 ;‘JL#_’_*_~_M_ R / HIGH COURT OF CHiiATTi§GARH AT BILAS?UR AFFELLA‘NTS V Rajendra Kerketta, sio Dhansai Katketta, aged 31 years, resident of Village Kerj‘ , RS. AND Tahsil S11apur, District Surguja Criminal Agntea1 E9; 3&1. 9f 2-005 _‘__,_._—————-— PRESEWT: (CG? RE$?0§'IDE“T Stata of Chhatt'isgarh Through District m&J Magistrate, Surguja Smt. indira Tripami, Ativocate far the appellant. Smt. Madhunisha Sir “h, Paws} Lawyer for thc State. La» JUEGME (m4bgmw §hirendxaMishm, J This conviction 506j2004 Whsreby léam€d 4‘11 Additional Ambikapur has convicted the LRC. and 11116 of Rs. for 5 months. cximinal appeal is (iirecmd against the judgment of and order of smatenced dated ‘7 -3—‘2G05 passsd in ST No‘ Sessions Judge, FTC, appellant under Section 489 (B) of 10 years and to pay a sentonced him to undergo Ri. for 500i —, in defauit of payment of fme, to further undergo RJ. on 24—8-2004 at about 2. Case of fhe prosecun'on in brief is that 18.30 131‘s. 100i — for porchasing biecuit. On being told the appellant and co-accused Viremlra came in the shop of complainant Atnl Lakda (RW. l) and gave currency note of Rs. appeam to be fake, he Started running away after taking out the note whereupon the complainant and other persons present in the shop apprehended mm The person who gave the note told his name Rajendra whereas the other persons was Virendra. The accused taken to the Police Station Seetapur and reportwas lodged and offence was registered under Section 4$9( the memorandum of appellant The seized notes Were that the currency note other 4 similar notes of l00/—. pereons also stated that they have They were of 1?. C. During were seized on B) read with Section 34 investigation, 4 currency notes of 100 denomination sent for examination to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of lndia and thereafter the Reserve Bank of lndia confirmed that the notes The notes were also sent for examination to the Currency completing investigation, charge sheet co-accused Virendra/ were fake. Note Press, Nasik Road. After iwas filed against the appellant and l 3. During triai, the prosecution examined 5 Witnesseg and theraafter statement of accused was recorded in which the appellaJnt denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and 'faise implication. However the triai Court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appeliant as mentioned above. 4. Lealned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that Rajendra did not tell the police about possessing fake notes and the police had seized two cuITency notes of 100 each from his possession vide seizure memo of EX. P—S. He has denied that the appellant gave any information about possessing more fake currency notes. The other witness of memorandum of seizure RW. 2 Amar Lakda has also not supported the prosecution case as he has also stated that only two fake currency notes of 100 were seized from the appellant. He has denied that the appellant gave any statement to the police regarding possessing fake cunency notes and the conviction is based on statement of the investigating Officer RW. 4 BBS. Rajput. Reliance is place in the matter of timashankex —'v- $tate' of Chhat‘tisgarhi and Gaffoor —v- State of Keralai. t). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties. ’7. Conviction is based on statement of Atul Lakda {F.W. 1), Amar Lakra (RW. 2} and Jan'fullah Ansari (RW. 3). The complainant Atul Lakda (RW. l) has deposed that on the date of incident, he was sitting in his provision store, at that time Rajendra came and asked for Parle G biscuit and gave a currency note of 100 which appeared to be fake currency note. When he told Rajendra-about the same, he started running. At that time, Amar Lakda (RW. 2) and Janifullah Ansari (RW. 3) were also sitting in the shop and they caught Rajendra. They took Rajendra to Seetapur police station and lodged report of Ex. Pal. However he denied the presence of co-accused Virendra at the time of incident. He has admitted his signature on memo of Ex. P—2 and admitted that accused Rajendra was interrogated by the police and who stated that he was possessing /. i l an LvOl CR1 LJ 4696 3 i988(l) Shon' Note page 73 ‘/ mm However, he has furthér stamd that the appeilant Rajendra did ciisc‘low about having fak€ currency note in his presence. He has admitted his signature on the seizure memo of Ex. P—3 and Ex. P-4 by which 4 currency notes of 1G0 were seized from ‘him'. He has been deciared hostile. In the cross~examination aiso he has denied having mentioned the name of co-accused Virelldra but he has stuck to his ahegatjon about. accused Rajendra. He has insisted that oniy two notes were seized from Rajendra in his presence. in the cross— examjnation on hehaif of the appeiiant, he has stuck to his examination~in-chief. Simjiar is the statement of Amar Lakda (PW. '2). He has stated that he was sitting in the shop of complainant when the compiainant asked him and Jaxifuliah to apprehend the appellant as he was possessing fake cunency note whereupon they apprehended Rajendra. This witness has also admitted his signature in memo of Ex. P~2 and seizuxe memo of Ex. P-3 and P—4. He has been declared hostile. However, in the cross—examination also he has stated that the seizure memo of Ex. P-3 and P—4 pertain to seizure from appellant Rajendra, however he has denied that 4 currency notes were seized from the appellant. danfullan (RW. 3) has also stated that the accused gave fake note of 100 to the complainant for purchasing biscuit. The complainant after discovery that the note is fake, asked them to apprehend Rajendra whereupon they apprehended Rajendra. 8. investigating officer RW. 4 BBS. Rajput, Sub inspector of Police has proved the memorandum of Ex. P-2 wherein the appellant disclosed that he was possessing 4 currency notes of IOQ each and 4 currency notes he has kept in his home in the box, on the basis of disclosure statement, 4 currency notes Were seized from him Vide Ex. P-4. The memorandum and seizure were affected in presence of witnesses. He had sought opinion of the Bank Manager of Centrai Bank of India, Fatahpur vide his memo dated 21-4-2004 of EX. P-6. Seized currency notes were sent to Currency Note Press, Nasik Road, Maharashtra and after receiving the report from the Press, charge sheet was filed. 9. RW. 5 Pra'deep Kumar Mishra, Branc manager of Central Bank of lndia has stated that the notes sent by S.H.O. Seetapur were prima facie found to he fake however he advised the We send h the notes for coniirmation to Reserve Bank of Inciia. The report of Currency Note Press, Nasik Road dated 7-2—2005 mentions that the currency notes 8 in number referred by the Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur were examined. They were received on sealed condition. After examination, the same were found to be counteifeit notes. 10. in the matters of Gaffoorz it has been held that for conviction under Section 489(B) and 48g(C) for possessing or using counterfeit currency note, \the prosecution has not only to estabiish the possession of the counterfeit note from the aCcused persons but it is also the requirement of iaw that the accused must have knowledge or reason to believe that the notes are forged or counterfeit. However it has been held that no direct evidence for the proof of knowledge is necessary and the circumstances leading to seizure of the fake note, the manner in which the accused came into possession of these notes may be considered for recording a finding about the knowledge or otherwise. 11. 1n the matter of Umashankerl also it has been heid that buying or receiving from another person or otherwise trafficking in or using as genuine or aiso possessing or even intending to use any forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes is not sufficient to make out a case under S. 489(C) in the absence of the mens rea i.e. knowledge or having reason to believe that the currency notes or bank notes are fake or counterfeit. 1'2. From the evidence of RW. 1 Atul Lakda, it would be evident that when he pointed out to the accused Rajendra that the note which he had tendered was fake, he started running away from his shop, however he was apprehended by him and two others. His version is duly corroborated from the statement of Arnar Lakda who has stated that the complainant told them to catch hold of the appellant as he was possessing fake currency note, thereafter they apprehended him. PW. 4 the investigating Officer has proved the seizure memo of Ex. P-S by which 4 fake currency notes of 100 each were taken into possession on being produced by the appellant. He has furtherproved the memo of EX. P‘Q wherein the appellant gave information of possessing more such notes and on the basis of discovery memo of Ex. P—‘2, 4 currency notes were taken into possession from the house of the appellant. Though the prosecution witnesses including the complainant and Atul Lakda and Amar Lakda who are signatories of the memo and seizure memorandums have (ienied that the appellant gave any information about possessing fake cunency notes however they have not disputed their signatures in the documents and they have also admitted that appellant Rajendra was interrogated by the pohce. Therefoxe the Version of the Investigating Chicer is corroborated to certain extent by the statement of these two Witnesses. SO far as the question of mens—rea i.e. knowledge of the appellant that he was possessing fake cunency notes with an intention to use the same as genuine is concerned, it can be gathered from his conduct because as soon as he was apprised by the complainant that the note tendered by him is fakei he started running from the shop and subsequently on the basis of his memorandum that he is having more fake currency notes which he has kept in his box in his home, 4 fake currency notes were recoveled from him. It has not been disputed by the appellant that the currency notes allegedly seized vide seizure memo of Ex. P-3 and P—4 have been uitimately found to be fake on examination. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant possessed fake currency notes With full knowledge that the currency notes were fake and the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant by the impugned order. 1:3. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substances is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. / a Sdb Dhirendra Mishra Judge