Cri.Appln.1234/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1234 OF 2017
Sunil s/o Ramu Jangle,
Age 47 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Plot No.18, Mohan Nagar,
Mahabal Colony, Jalgaon
Taluka and District Jalgaon .. Applicant
(Orig. accused No.3)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. Rajesh s/o Hemraj Saraf,
Age 42 years, occu. Business,
(Gas Agency), R/o Bhadli,
Taluka and District Jalgaon .. Respondents
(No.2 - orig. complainant)
Mr V.J. Dixt, Senior Counsel i/b Mr R.B. Ade, Advocate for applicant
Mr K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1
Mrs S.A. Dhumal-Tambat, Advocate for respondent no.2
CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 8th June 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Rule. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel
waive service of notice for respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, application is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
3. The applicant is praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the shape of Regular Criminal Case No.85/2017 in pursuance to the first information report No.186 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 ::: Cri.Appln.1234/2017 2 of 2016 lodged by respondent No.2 at Jilha Peth Police Station, Jalgaon on 23rd December 2016. The respondent No.2 alleges in the complaint that he wanted to convert demonetised currency notes worth Rs.30 lakhs into the valid currency notes, which is legal tender in accordance with the policy prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The informant approached one Chandrashekhar Krishna Chaudhary and his wife Chandralekha. The informant also approached his maternal father-in-law by name Sunil Ramu Jangle, applicant herein who assured to help the informant in exchange of notes.
4. The applicant is serving in Janata Co-operative Bank at Jalgaon. Informant handed over the demonetised notes worth Rs.30 lakhs on 28th November 2016 to Chandrashekhar Chaudhari and his maternal uncle's niece Chandralekha who had extended assurance to him to help in exchange of notes. It was also decided between the parties that informant would be paid Rs.26 lakhs in lieu of tender of notes worth Rs.30 lakhs. The informant stated that the accused failed to deliver the valid currency notes as assured and have thus committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The question that falls for consideration in the matter is whether the allegations levelled against the applicant herein constitute offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not a matter of dispute that the Reserve Bank of India declared the policy of demonetisation of currency notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000 on 8th November 2016. It is declared in the gazetted notification dated 8th November 2016 bearing No.RB/2016- 17/12 DCM (Pig) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17 that the Bank notes of the ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 ::: Cri.Appln.1234/2017 3 existing series issued by Reserve Bank of India shall cease to be a legal tender w.e.f. 9th November 2016 to the extent specified in the Notification. The Notification prescribed the modalities for exchange of the old notes. The policy provides for the mechanism of the exchange of the old notes. The bearer of the notes is expected under the policy to exchange the notes only at the Reserve Bank of India and other prescribed Banks and other instrumentalities as specified in the Notification. It cannot be disputed that under the policy declared by the Reserve Bank of India on 8 th November 2016, the existing currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- from 9 th November 2016 cannot be considered as legal tender. Admittedly, the applicant herein or any of the persons cannot be said to be the individuals authorised to receive demonetised Bank notes and exchange the same with the valid currency. Firstly, it was not permissible for the applicant himself to maintain the stock of demonetised currency without proper disclosure or to make any attempt to exchange the same or to transact the same as a legal tender with any private individual. It was also not permissible for the accused to extend any assurance in respect of exchange of demonetised notes, since he is not the authority prescribed under the policy declared by the Reserve Bank of India on 8th November 2016.
5. The question is as to whether ingredients of Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied so far as the allegations levelled against the applicant concerned. The definition of cheating is prescribed under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus :
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 :::
Cri.Appln.1234/2017 4
415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
In the instant matter, demonetised currency that has been as allegedly delivered to the accused are Bank notes and the alleged transaction which constitutes the offence, according to informant has taken place after 9th November 2016. The demonetised Bank notes are capable of being converted into valuable security only by adopting the norms, as prescribed in the Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 8th November 2016. The demonetised Bank notes with the informant or which were delivered to the accused after 8 th November 2016 can be construed as capable of being converted into valuable security only at the Bank or establishment specified in the Notification issued by Reserve Bank of India on 8th November 2016.
6. It is the contention of the informant that the demonetised Bank notes were handed over to the private individuals who assured him to deliver the valid currency. The agreement between the informant and the other private individuals named in the first information report itself is against the policy laid down by the Reserve Bank of India on 8th November 2016. Any private individual, in fact, is not authorised to exchange the demonetised notes with the valid currency notes and ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 ::: Cri.Appln.1234/2017 5 it is only the specified establishments and Banks can transact in relation to the demonetised Bank notes and that too in accordance with the policy prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. The ingredients of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code thus cannot be said to be attracted in the instant matter nor it can be said that the accused have dishonestly induced delivery of the property. The demonetised Bank notes with the informant or with the other individuals named in the first information report cannot be said to be 'property' unless it is converted into valuable security by adopting the norms prescribed in the Notification and in the instant matter, it is not the case of the informant that either the accused assured him to observe the modalities prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India or that it was an expectation of the informant to exchange the notes by observing such modalities. In fact, on perusal of the first information report, it is clear that the first informant wanted to exchange the demonetised notes in contravention of the policy laid down by Reserve Bank of India. The action of the informant, which amounts to contravention of the policy prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under the Notification dated 8th November 2016 itself is the matter requiring investigation. The allegations levelled against the applicant in respect of criminal breach of trust also do not appear to be correct and do not satisfy ingredients of offence. Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal breach of trust as :
405. Criminal breach of trust - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 ::: Cri.Appln.1234/2017 6 property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".
7. In the instant matter, the applicant is not the person to whom the property was entrusted. The demonetised Bank notes handed over by the informant to the other accused named in the first information report can be construed to be capable of being converted to valuable security which can be done only by adoption of procedure prescribed by Reserve Bank of India in its Circular. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted so far as the acts allegedly attributed to the applicant is concerned and as such, he is not liable to be punished under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant are not sustainable in law. Criminal Application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant bearing Regular Criminal Case No.85/2017 in pursuance to the registration of C.R.No.186/2016, registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon, before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalgaon stand quashed.
9. Rule is accordingly made absolute.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.) ( R.M. BORDE, J.)
vvr
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 05:25:31 :::