Mohinder Pratap vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 4704 Del

$-R-10 & R-11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : 9th OCTOBER, 2013

+                           CRL.A.No. 550/2003

       MOHINDER PRATAP                                     ..... Appellant
                     Through :       Mr.V.P.S.Raghav, Advocate.

                            versus

       THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                           ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

AND

+                           CRL.A.No. 335/2003

       PRAMOD RAI                                          ..... Appellant
                     Through :       Mr.V.P.S.Raghav, Advocate.

                            versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                ..... Respondent
                Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Mohinder Pratap (A-1) and Pramod Rai (A-2) were arrested

in case FIR No. 107/2000 PS Lodhi Colony and sent for trial with the

allegations that on 02.04.2000 in between 08.00 to 08.30 P.M. at House

No. WZ-656, Gali No. 27, Shad Nagar, Shanipura, Palam Colony, they

hatched criminal conspiracy to circulate forged / counterfeit currency

notes. It is further alleged that pursuant to the said conspiracy on

04.04.2000 at about 05.30 P.M., A-1 used the counterfeit currency note in

the denomination of ` 50/- to purchase a campa from the complainant -

Satpal Chawla at Shop No.42, Mahender Marg, Lodhi Colony, New

Delhi, knowing or having reasons to believe it fake. 32 counterfeit

currency notes in the denomination of ` 50/- were recovered from his

possession. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses

conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court in which A-1 and

A-2 were duly charged and brought to trial. To prove its case, the

prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In their 313 statements, the

accused persons claimed themselves innocent and falsely implicated in the

case. The Trial Court, by a judgment dated 22.05.2002 in Sessions Case

No. 224/2000 held A-1 guilty for committing offences under Sections

120B/489B/489C IPC. A-2 was held guilty under Section 120B IPC Only.

By an order dated 30.05.2002, they were given various terms of

imprisonment with fine. Being aggrieved, they have preferred appeals.

2. During the course of arguments A-1 opted not to challenge

his conviction under Sections 489B/489C IPC and accepted it voluntarily.

He however, prayed to take lenient view as he had already remained in

incarceration for 39 months and was not a previous offender. A-2 was

convicted only for offence under Section 120B IPC. Allegations against

him were that he and A-1 were found counting currency notes on

02.04.2000 at House No. WZ-656, Gali No. 27, Shad Nagar, Shanipura,

Palam Colony. The Prosecution however, could not produce any cogent

and reliable evidence to establish A-2's complicity in the offence. PW-7

(Munni Lal) merely disclosed that on 02.04.2000, A-1 and A-2 were seen

counting notes in the room under tenant of A-1. He did not elaborate if the

currency notes being counted were in denomination of ` 50/- and were

fake. In the cross-examination, he was fair enough to admit that he was

not aware if the currency notes were 100 or 500 and did not know whether

those were new or old. He was also unable to tell their denomination. No

adverse inference can be drawn from this circumstance as mere counting

of currency notes by both A-1 and A-2 does not establish conspiracy to

circulate counterfeit currency notes. Admittedly, no fake currency note

was recovered from A-2's possession. He was not present at the time of

purchase of campa by A-1 from the shop of the complainant. No overt act

was attributed to him in the incident to infer that he was also beneficiary.

Mere presence of A-2 with A-1 at his residence is inconsequential. The

meeting of minds or the element of agreement is the essence of the

offence under Section 120 B IPC. Mere evidence of association is not

sufficient to lead to a inference of conspiracy. The prosecution must show

that A-2 agreed with A-1 that together they would accomplish the

unlawful object of the conspiracy. Even if facts relied upon taken at their

face value cannot lead to the inference beyond doubt that there was

meeting of minds between A-1 and A-2. Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly

admitted that the evidence adduced on this aspect is highly scanty and

weak. The prosecution has failed to establish its care beyond doubt and

A-2's conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and he (A-2) is

acquitted of the charge.

3. Since A-1 has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial

Court under Sections 489B/489C IPC and there is ample evidence on

record coupled with recovery of fake currency notes, the findings on

conviction stands affirmed. As regards sentence, nominal roll shows that

he has already remained incarceration for two years, eleven months and

twenty seven days as on 10.11.2003. He also earned remission for five

months and two days. He has clean antecedents and was not involved in

any other criminal activity. After his enlargement on bail and suspension

of substantive sentence on 17.11.2003 his involvement in similar crime

did not surface. The fine has since been deposited. All these

circumstances are sufficient to release A-1 for the period already

undergone by him in this case.

4. The Trial Court shall ensure that the fine imposed has since

been deposited by A-1.

5. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back immediately.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

OCTOBER 09, 2013/tr