Shri Shish Ram vs The State (Nct, Delhi)
2011 Latest Caselaw 2434 Del

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

+             CRL. APPEAL NO. 131/2005

%                    Judgment decided on: 6th May, 2011


SHRI SHISH RAM                                  ....APPELLANT

                           Through:   Mr. R.C. Pathak      and    Ms.
                                      Neelima Raj, Advs.

                           Versus

THE STATE (NCT, DELHI)                         ....RESPONDENT

                           Through:   Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the
                                      State.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK


       1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
          may be allowed to see the judgment?                No

       2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                 No

       3. Whether the judgment should be
          reported in the Digest?                            No

A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)

1. Appellant has been convicted under Section 489-B IPC by

the Trial Court vide judgment dated 16th December, 2004 and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years

with fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Benefit of Section

428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellant. That is how

appellant is before this Court by way of present appeal.

2. Prosecution case as unfolded is that on 26th September,

1998, at about 4 pm, appellant had gone to the shop of

complainant Shyam Lal, who was doing "Money Exchange"

business at Chandni Chowk. He gave him `10,000/- in the form

of currency notes of `100/- denomination. He requested him to

exchange the same with currency notes of `500 denomination.

Complainant suspected that the currency notes were fake,

accordingly, he showed the same to his friend Purshottam Das,

who was also engaged in same business. Purshottam Das

confirmed that the currency notes were fake. Constable

Yoginder, who was on duty in the area, was informed about this

fact by the complainant. On seeing Constable Yoginder,

appellant started running. Constable Yoginder chased the

appellant and apprehended him.

3. Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter referred to as

„Investigating Officer‟), who was present in the area, also

reached the spot and met Constable Yoginder. He recorded

statement of complainant Shyam Lal on the basis whereof FIR

No.232/1998 under Sections 120-B/489-B/489-C IPC was

registered. Appellant was arrested. Currency notes were

seized. Roles of co-accused, who are not party to this appeal,

are not discussed herein.

4. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. appellant has

denied prosecution story. He claimed having been falsely

implicated.

5. Complainant Shyam Lal has been examined as PW3.

Purshottam Das has been examined as PW2. Both these

witnesses have not identified the appellant in Court as the same

person who had tendered counterfeit currency notes worth

`10,000/- in the denomination of `100/- each. They have also

denied that appellant was apprehended by Constable Yoginder

in their presence. PW2 has deposed that on 26th September,

1998 Shyam Lal came to his shop and asked him to exchange

`10,000/- in the shape of currency notes of `100/-

denomination each. On checking the packet he realized that the

same were fake. Thereafter, he and Shyam Lal came out of

their shop and informed this fact to Constable Yoginder who

was on duty in the area. Fake currency notes were also handed

over to him. The person, who had come to the shop of Shyam

Lal and had handed over the fake currency notes, tried to run

away when the fake currency notes were handed to Constable

Yoginder. PW2 further deposed that he cannot identify that

person now. PW3 Shyam Lal has deposed that 2-3 persons had

come to his shop on the fateful day and handed over him loose

currency notes of `100/- denomination each for exchanging the

same with currency notes of `500/- denomination. He

suspected these currency notes to be fake. He showed these

currency notes to his neighbor Chaman Lal who also suspected

the same to be fake. He then handed over the currency notes to

one Purshottam Das, who was also carrying on same business.

He deposed that he did not know what happened with the

currency notes or to the person who had come to exchange the

currency notes. He deposed that no one was apprehended by

the police in his presence. He did not recognize the appellant as

the same person who had come to his shop and had handed

over the packet of currency notes of `100/- denomination each.

He also did not identify the seized currency notes to be the

same which were handed over to him. He was declared hostile

and cross-examined by the APP but nothing could be elicited

from him which can go in favour of prosecution version and

against the appellant.

6. Constable Yoginder was examined as PW1. He has

deposed that he was present near the shop no. 1238 of Shyam

Lal, who was dealing in exchanging the old notes. Shyam Lal

told him that one person was having forged currency notes.

Appellant was also present there. But on seeing him appellant

started running. He gave a chase to him and apprehended him.

In the meanwhile, Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar came there and

recorded statement of complainant Shyam Lal. Currency notes

were seized. Appellant was arrested. Sub Inspector Sanjay

Kumar has been examined as PW8. Trial Court has found the

testimonies of PW1 and PW8 trustworthy, reliable and sufficient

enough to convict the appellant.

7. In my view, Trial Court was not right in convicting the

appellant on the shaky evidence adduced on record which was

not sufficient to prove the complicity of appellant in the crime

beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. PW2 Purshottam Das and

PW3 Shyam Lal have not identified the appellant. Appellant

was not arrested in their presence since both of them have

deposed that on seeing the police personnel the person who had

given the counterfeit currency notes ran away. Constable gave

a chase and apprehended him. No money was recovered from

the appellant after his arrest. Who handed over the currency

notes to Constable Yoginder has also remained unproved as

PW2 and PW3 have not supported the prosecution version on

this point. PW3 has deposed that he did not know as to what

happened to the currency notes. He deposed that he had

handed over the currency notes to Chaman Lal and then to P.D.

Gupta. Chaman Lal has not been examined. PW2 has deposed

that currency notes were given to Constable Yoginder. However,

PW1 Constable Yoginder has deposed that currency notes were

given by PW3 Shyam Lal.

8. In view of this sketchy evidence, Trial Court ought not to

have convicted the appellant. Appellant is entitled to benefit of

doubt resulting in his acquittal.

9. In view of above discussions, appeal is allowed and

impugned order is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. His bail

bond/surety bond discharged.

10. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

May 06, 2011 ga