Delhi High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs State on 17 April, 2014
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on :02.04.2014.
Judgment delivered on :17.04.2014
+ CRL.A. 233/2006
PANKAJ KUMAR
..... Appellant
Through Appellant with his counsel Mr.
S.C. Bhuttan and Mr. Sandeep
Bhutani, Advs.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 244/2006
GULSHAN KHAN
..... Appellant
Through Appellant with his counsel
Mr.I.A. Alvi and Mohd. Altaf,
Advs.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 245/2006
BABBU ALVI
..... Appellant
Through Appellant with his counsel
Mr.I.A. Alvi and Mohd. Altaf,
Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 261/2006
KAMALDEEP NARULA
..... Appellant
Crl. Appeals No.233/2006, 244/2006, 245/2006 & 261/2006 Page 1 of 26
Through Appellant with his counsel Mr.
Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran
Khan, Advs.
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 There are four appellants before this Court. Appellants Babbu
Alvi, Pankaj Kumar and Kamaldeep Narula have been convicted for the
offence under Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and each of
them have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI
for 6 months. The fourth appellant Gulshan Khan has been convicted for
the offence under Section 489-D of the IPC and has been sentenced to
undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and
in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 year. The sentences
were to run concurrently; benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been
granted to the appellants.
2 The version of the prosecution is that pursuant to a secret
information on 15.01.2003 at about 11:30 am SI Arvind Sagar (PW-11)
was informed that Babbu Alvi and his associate would reach a place
near Dwarka Mandir, Double Storey Quarters along with forged
currency samples to show to his customers. A raiding party comprising
of PW-11, HC Harpal (PW-6), HC Sunder Lal (PW-7), constable
Dharmender (PW-8) and constable Dhiraj Singh (PW-3) was
constituted. Ishtiyak (PW-5), the public witnesses was asked to join raid.
At about 01:15 pm, Babbu Alvi and Gulshan Khan were overpowered
and apprehended; this was at the instance of the secret informer.
3 From the personal search of Babbu Alvi, 6 forged currency notes
in the denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered; three notes were
bearing No. 4NG 025667; remaining three had number of 4NG 025664.
They were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide seizure memo
Ex.PW-6/A. From the personal search of Gulshan Khan, 4 notes in the
denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered having serial No. 4NG
025665. They were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW-6/B) Pursuant to the disclosure statement of Gulshan
Khan (Ex.PW-6/C), he led the police party to his house at C-463,
Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi from where a machine (Ex.P-2) used for
preparation of forged currency notes along with printing material (Ex.P-
3) were recovered. This was seized vide memo Ex.PW-6/E.
4 On 16.01.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused
Babbu Alvi (Ex PW-6/C), he led the police party to his residence from
where he got recovered 22 currency notes of Rs.100/- each; out of these
22 notes, 6 currency notes had one number; 5 currency notes had one
number, another 5 currency notes were also of same number and
remaining 6 had only three numbers; they were seized, sealed and taken
into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/F.
5 On 17.01.2003 pursuant to the disclosure statement of Gulshan
Khan and at his pointing out, accused Kamaldeep Narula was arrested.
From his personal search, 34 currency notes in the denomination of
Rs.100/- each were recovered of which 11 notes had a number 4NG
025665; 10 bore the number 4NG 025664 and remaining 13 notes had a
number of 4NG 0025666; they were seized, sealed and taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/G.
6 Complicity of Pankaj Kumar was revealed in the disclosure
statement of Kamaldeep Narula. From his possession 71 currency notes
of Rs.100/- each were recovered of which 25 notes bore No. 4NG
025664; 21 bore the number of 4NG 025665 and 23 had a number 4NG
025666 and one note of number 4NG 106482; remaining notes were
having number of 4 NG 106468. These notes were also seized, sealed
and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/L.
7 In his disclosure statement, Pankaj Kumar had revealed that one
note of Rs.100/- was spent on buying a cigarette packet from a
shopkeeper (Pankaj Kumar S/o Ram Gopal examined as PW-10). This
currency note was having a number 4NG025666 which was also seized,
sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/N.
8 The prosecution examined 12 witnesses of whom Deepa Verma
(PW-12) had proved her report Ex.PW-12/A; after examining all the 138
notes which had been sent to her; they have been found to be forged.
9 In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.PC, they had stated that they have been falsely implicated
in the present case; they are innocent.
10 No evidence was led in defence.
11 On the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the
prosecution, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as
aforenoted.
12 Arguments have been addressed in detail. On behalf of appellant
Pankaj Kumar, arguments had been addressed by Mr. S.C. Bhuttan. On
behalf of appellant Babbu Alvi, arguments had been addressed by Mr.
I.A.Alvi, Advocate. On behalf of appellant Kamaldeep Narula,
arguments had been addressed by Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to
the versions of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-11 pointing out the various
discrepancies in their versions primarily on the place from where the
accused were arrested; attention having been drawn to the arrest memos;
submission of the learned counsel for appellant Pankaj Kumar being that
this arrest was effected from the residence of Pankaj where his parents
were also present but the signatures of his parents were not taken on the
arrest memo and there is no explanation why the information of his
arrest had not been given to his parents but has been given to his
maternal uncle which is evident from his arrest memo. Further
submission being that ingredients of Section 489-C of the IPC are not
made out; the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused
persons had knowledge of the fact that the notes in their possession were
in fact counterfeit/forged; there is no such evidence of a conscious
possession. Further submission being that since the appellants have been
acquitted of the substantive offence under Section 120-B of the IPC in
the absence of any conspiracy between the accused persons, the
individual charge under Section 489-C of the IPC is also not
maintainable. On behalf of appellant Gulshan Khan, additional argument
has been addressed. It is pointed out that the printing machine which is
purported to have been recovered at his instance from his house has
essentially to be disbelieved for the reason that the recovery memo
Ex.PW-6/A bore the signatures of the public witness Ishtiyak (PW-5)
who has not supported the version of the prosecution; he is hostile.
There is no explanation as to why no other public witness had signed the
aforenoted documents. Recovery was effected from the residence of
Gulshan Khan where his family members were also present in the house
but signatures have not been obtained; the recovery has necessarily to be
disbelieved. Appellants are entitled to a benefit of doubt and a
consequent acquittal. In the alternate it has been argued that the offence
under Section 489-C is punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to 7 years or fine; submission being that fine is also an alternate
punishment which is engrafted by the legislature and keeping in view
the fact that all the appellants i.e. appellant Pankaj, appellant Babbu Alvi
and appellant Kamaldeep Narula have already suffered incarceration for
about 5 months and the offence relating to the year 2003 i.e. almost a
decade old leniency should be awarded in the sentence. On behalf of
appellant Gulshan Khan, the same plea has been set up; submission
being that even in a case under Section 489-D of the IPC, there is no
minimum sentence prescribed and appellant Gulshan Khan has also
undergone incarceration for about 5 months; he should also be
considered leniently on the point of sentence. For this proposition,
reliance has been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court
reported as MANU/DE/4687/2013 Feroz Khan Vs. State.
13 Learned public prosecutor has refuted these submissions. It is
pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution has fully established the
conscious possession of the appellants qua the forged currency notes;
the fact that they were forged has been answered by the CFSL in its
report Ex.PW-12/A; public witness (PW-5) although hostile has yet
supported the version of the prosecution to the extent that he had
admittedly joined the raid where the appellants were involved. Reliance
has been placed upon AIR 2013 SC 3344 Pramod Kumar Vs. State
(GNCT) of Delhi 1982 and Crl. L. J. 751 Om Parkash Vs. The State to
support a submission that the police witnesses should not be treated with
distrust and if their testimony is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the
Courts can act upon it.
14 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.
15 The information of the incident was given in the local police
station by a secret informer pursuant to which a raiding party had been
constituted headed by PW-6. PW-8 had also joined PW-6 in this raid.
PW-6 has deposed that on 15.01.2003 pursuant to this information
which has been received in the local police station PW-11 directed
PW-6 to reach the spot where as per the secret information, Babbu Alvi
was to come along with his accomplice; they being involved in a fake
currency racket. PW-6 along with PW-8 reached the spot at about 12:05
pm; constable Dharmender (PW-8) and constable Sunder Lal had also
joined them. On their asking, PW-5 had agreed to join the raid. At about
01:15 pm two persons coming from the side of ISBT were identified by
the secret informer; they were overpowered. On the search of Babbu
Alvi, 6 currency notes were recovered from his right pant pocket of
which 3 GC notes were having a number of 4NG 025667 and the
remaining 3 had another number i.e. 4NG 025664. PW-6 has further
deposed that even on a face reading, the documents appeared to be
forged as every note was having a picture of „Mahatma Gandhi‟ and the
words „Bhartiya Reserve Bank‟ in Hindi and English were written upon
it. These notes were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW-6/A. From the personal search of Gulshan Khan, 4 currency
notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered; this was from his
left pant pocket; all of them had the same number i.e. 4NG 025665;
further deposition of PW-6 being that these notes also appeared to be
evidently forged as all of them had a picture of „Mahatma Gandhi‟ and
the words „Bhartiya Reserve Bank‟ was written in Hindi and English on
these notes. These notes were seized, sealed and taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PW-6/B. The rukka was sent through constable
Dharmender for the registration of the FIR which was registered through
ASI Joginder (PW-1) at 03:00 pm. Investigation was thereafter handed
over to PW-11. Further deposition being that the disclosure statement of
accused Gulshan Khan (Ex.PW6/C) disclosed that he could get the
printing machine recovered which was being used for printing these fake
notes; he led the police party to his residence at C-463, Sector-1, Rohini,
Delhi; they reached the house of Gulshan Khan at 06:00 pm.
Photographs of recovery which included Hewlett packard AC/DC
adapter, head wire, blade/cutter, rubber stamp, handle, staple, scale
stainless steel, black rubber gutka, HP Ink Jet print cartridge, paper
cutter machine vide memo Ex.PW-6/E. The said articles were sealed
after putting a seal of „AS‟. Further deposition of PW-6 being that on
16.01.2003, he along with PW-11 reached the lock-up where Babbu
Alvi and Gulshan had been kept. Pursuant to his disclosure statement,
Babbu Alvi led the police party to his shop at A-1, 641, Sector-6, Rohini
from where after opening the lock of his shop with the key, he got
recovered 22 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- which
were lying in a „garam patti‟; they were seized, sealed and taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/F. On 17.01.2003, PW-6 along with
PW-11 and PW-8 reached the police station. Accused Gulshan Khan
had disclosed the name of his accomplice Kamaldeep. Further version of
PW-6 being that Kamaldeep was apprehended and overpowered at Budh
Vihar which was at the pointing out of Gulshan Khan and Babbu Alvi.
On his personal search, 34 notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- were
seized, sealed and taken into possession vide Ex.PW-6/G. Pursuant to
the disclosure statement of Kamaldeep (Ex.PW-6/J), he disclosed the
complicity of Pankaj Kumar and led the police party to his residence at
1808, Outer Lane, Mukherjee Nagar, Kingsway Camp from where
Pankaj was arrested and from his possession 71 currency notes of
Rs.100/- were seized, sealed and taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW-6/F. Further deposition of PW-6 being that on checking them,
they were found to be counterfeit; the photograph of Mahatma Gandhi
affixed on which „Bhartiya Reserve Bank‟ was written both in English
and in Hindi. Disclosure statement of Pankaj Ex.PW-6/M was recorded.
However, on 18.01.2003, pursuant to the disclosure statement of
Pankaj and Kamaldeep, they led the police party to Mukherjee Nagar at
betel shop of Pankaj (examined as PW-10) to whom one currency note
had been given by Pankaj to purchase a cigarette. This note was taken
into possession vide memo Ex.PW-6/N. It had a number of 4 NG
025666.
16 PW-6 was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. He reiterated
that Kamaldeep was arrested from Budh Vihar. Attention has been
drawn to the cross-examination of PW-8; submission being that he has
stated that Kamaldeep was arrested from Kingsway Camp. This is in
contrast with the version of PW-6 who has stated that Kamaldeep was
arrested from Budh Vihar. This has been vehemently highlighted by the
learned counsel for appellant Kamaldeep to support a submission that
this discrepancy is irreconcilable for which a benefit of doubt has to be
given to Kamaldeep as his place of arrest is not certain.
17 This Court is not in agreement with this submission. PW-6 has
categorically stated as on 17.01.2003, he had joined investigation with
the accused persons and accused Babbu Alvi and Gulshan Khan had led
the police party to Budh Vihar from where appellant Kamaldeep was
overpowered. PW-8 has nowhere given a contrary version. PW-8 has
explained that at the instance of Gulshan Khan and Babbu Alvi, the
police party had reached Budh Vihar from where Kamaldeep was
apprehended and after his arrest, he had led the police party to the
residence of Pankaj which is at Kingsway Camp. This has been
reiterated by PW-8 in two or three places; in one part of his cross-
examination, he has stated that Kamaldeep was apprehended from
Kingsway Camp; this is obviously due to an inadvertence. Trite it is to
say that it is the entire version of a witness which has to be scrutinized
before answering an argument of this nature; testimony of PW-6 & PW-
8 both coherently established that Kamaldeep was arrested from Budh
Vihar; thereafter he had led the police party to the house of Pankaj
which is at Kingsway Camp.
18 Version of PW-6 has been fully corroborated by PW-8 who was
the other member of the raiding party. He has also deposed on the same
lines. In fact nothing else has been pointed out in his version which
could discredit his testimony. So also the testimony of PW-11 who was
the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed on the same lines as PW-
6 & PW-8. It is also not a case that the Investigating Officer had not
joined any member of public. Member of public had been joined who
was PW-5. PW-5 on oath admitted that he had joined the raid and had
gone to the house of Gulshan Khan; apart from that he did not support
the version of the prosecution and was permitted to be declared hostile
by the learned public prosecutor. He however did not help the version of
the prosecution. However, to the limited extent i.e. PW-5 having joined
the raid and having gone to the house of accused Gulshan Khan along
with the police party is an admitted fact. Thus the judgment in 2013 VII
AD (Delhi) 579 State Vs. Om Prakash & Others relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellants that public witnesses not having been
joined, recovery becomes doubtful is not applicable as public witness
(PW-5) was admittedly joined in this case but he has not supported the
version of the prosecution.
19 PW-10 Pankaj (son of Ram Gopal) was another public witness to
whom (as per the version of the prosecution) one currency note of
Rs.100/- was given by accused Pankaj for purchase of cigarette;
Ex.PW-6/N is the documentary evidence substantiating this version of
the prosecution that this currency note (later on found to be forged) had
been handed over by PW-10 to the investigating team; PW-10 having
received it from accused Pankaj. To this extent, PW-10 has supported
the version of the prosecution. He had admitted that he was assisting his
brother at his tea shop which was at the footpath; one customer had
given him note of Rs.100/- to purchase cigarette which was counterfeit
and the same note was then recovered by the police from him vide
memo Ex.PW-6/N.
20 PW-12 had proved the report Ex.PW-12/A detailing that all the
138 notes which had been examined by her pursuant to the instructions
of her superior were fake and forged. The report Ex.PW-12/A evidences
that these currency notes had been examined under different scientific
instruments, there was absence of intaglio printing, lack of ultra violet
fluorescent numbers, absence of security thread, absence of water marks
and absence of micro printing and different nature of hidden image of
„100‟ in green strips indicating the fake nature of currency notes.
21 Section 489-C of the IPC entails a conscious possession. A plain
reading of this Section shows that the burden is on the prosecution to
prove that at the time when the accused was possessing the note he
knew that it was a forged one; the mere possession of it by him does not
shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocent possession of the
forged note; it must be established that the accused intended to use the
forged or counterfeit currency note as a genuine or it might be used as
genuine.
22 Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the appellants
being that this has not been established by the prosecution and in the
absence of which benefit of doubt has to accrue in favour of the
appellants. For this proposition, reliance has been placed upon the
judgment reported as AIR 1979 SC 1705 M. Mammutti Vs. State of
Karnataka as also another judgment reported as DRJ 1985 (9) 228 State
(Delhi Admn.) Vs. Pawan Kumar Garg; submission being that in both
these cases where this fact was not proved by the prosecution by shifting
the burden to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would
not be proper as the prosecution could not be relieved of establishing the
ingredients of the offence alleged. The judgment reported in 1990 Crl.
L.J 215 Madan Lal Sarma Vs. the State has also been highlighted.
23 There is no doubt to the proposition that there must be a
conscious possession established by the prosecution qua the appellants
before a conviction under Section 489-C of the IPC can be sustained
against them. This conscious possession has to be established from the
oral testimony of the witnesses as also the documentary evidence which
is adduced. In the instant case, PW-6, PW-8 and Investigating Officer
PW-11 have all stated that a bare face look of the notes which were
recovered from each of the four accused persons clearly showed to be
fake and forged. An explanation had also been furnished by PW-6; PW-
6 has stated that they appeared to be forged on the face of it as each of
them had a picture of „Mahatma Gandhi‟ with the words „Bhartiya
Reserve Bank‟ written upon it both in Hindi and English; all these notes
also had identical numbers. Out of 22 notes which were recovered from
Babbu Alvi (from his shop), 6 notes were having the same number;
another 5 notes were also having the same number and the remaining 6
had only 3 numbers. All the 4 notes recovered from Gulshan Khan had
the same number. Out of 34 notes recovered from Kamal (Ex.PW-6/G),
11 had the same number; another 10 also had the same number and the
remaining 13 also had the same number. From Pankaj Kumar, 71 notes
were recovered of which 25 currency notes had one number; 21 had
another number; 23 bore another number as also one which has another
number and the remaining notes also bore an identical number. The oral
testimony of PW-6, PW-8 & PW-11 on this score was categorical that
on a face look of the document itself, they appeared to be forged and
fake; submission of the learned public prosecutor on this score being
that the conscious possession qua the appellants thus becomes writ
large. Report Ex.PW-12/A also recites that the number of the notes
shows the absence of intaglio printing, lack of ultra violet fluorescent
numbers, absence of security thread, absence of water marks and
absence of micro printing as also different nature of hidden image of
„100‟ in green strips thus being forged. This report further shows that 6
parcels had been sent for analysis and after examination of the notes
which were recovered from each parcel, a report was sent disclosing that
all these 138 notes were counterfeit.
24 Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants on this report
is that at serial No. (ii) of Ex.PW-12/A, 6 currency notes seized vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW-6/A) all had the same number (4NG025664) but
the seizure memo shows that 3 had a number of 4NG 025664 and the
remaining 3 had a number 4NG 025666. There is no doubt that in
exhibit (ii) (in Ex.PW-12/A) all the 6 currency notes have been given
the same number. It is not the case of the appellants that these 6 notes
were not a part of this exhibit; parcel No. (ii) related to seizure memo
Ex.PW-6/A which was opened by the expert and all the 6 notes
contained in that parcel as per this report were fake notes. This is thus
obviously due to a typing error. Argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants on this score is thus without any merit.
25 The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in
this context is that no specific question has been put to the appellants
about their conscious possession in their statement under Section 313 of
the Cr.PC which again entitles the appellants to a benefit and for this
purpose reliance has been placed upon the judgment of M. Mammutti
(supra). This argument is bereft of force.
26 The very first question put to all the appellants read herein as
under:-
"It is in evidence against you that on 15.1.03 at AATS Office, North East
Distt. A secret information was received to Insp. Shiv Chand Pw in presence of PW
HC Harpal that one Babu Alvi was involved in business of counterfeit currency
notes and would come at about 1 pm at Double Storey, Welcome in Dwarka Mandir
to hand over courterfeit currency note to his associate. What have you to say?
A I do not know."
27 This question by itself clearly incriminates the accused of dealing
with the counterfeit currency. The Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 1693
Shobhit Chamar and Another Vs. State of Bihar while dealing with an
argument in this context had noted that a challenge to a conviction based
on non-compliance of Section 313 of the Cr.PC cannot be taken up for
the first time in appeal unless it is shown that the appellants have
suffered some kind of a prejudice. Relevant extract of this judgment
reads herein as under:-
"We have perused all these reported decisions relied upon by the learned Advocates
for the parties and we see no hesitation in concluding that the challenge to the
conviction based on non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. first time in this appeal
cannot be entertained unless the appellants demonstrate that the prejudice has been
caused to them. In the present case as indicated earlier, the prosecution strongly
relied upon the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses and relevant questions with
reference to this evidence were put to the appellants. If the evidence of these
witnesses if found acceptable, the conviction can be sustained unless it is shown by
the appellants that a prejudice has been caused to them. No such prejudice was
demonstrated before us and, therefore, we are unable to accept the contention
raised on behalf of the appellants. "
28 Even presuming that there was no direct question put to the
appellants on this score, the appellants have failed to show that any
prejudice has been suffered by them.
29 Another argument propounded by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the FIR number finds mention in the seizure memos
when the FIR had not been registered by that point of time and as such
whether the documents were prepared on the spot or later on creates a
doubt for which benefit must accrue to the appellants and for this
proposition reliance has been placed upon 2000 Crl. L.J 2645 Chand
Khan Vs. State. This argument is also noted only to be negatived. A
Bench of this Court in 2013 II AD (Delhi) 288 Rattan @ Ratan Singh
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court
in JT 2001 (3) SC 535 Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Haryana has
answered this question as follows:-
"15. In any event the law as explained by the Supreme Court is that the mere
writing of the FIR number on the arrest and search memos cannot entirely falsity
those documents. Significant among the decisions is Radhey Shyam Vs. State of
Haryana JT 2001(3) SC 535. Also, there is merit in the contention of the
Respondent that there was no specific question put to the officers concerned in their
cross-examination. What the counsel for the accused appears to have been done is
to ask the witness whether the portion of the document from "point A to A" (which
included the portion containing the FIR number) was written at the same time. This
might be intelligent cross examination but if the defence wants to prove that the FIR
number was in fact written at a later point in time the witness ought to have been
asked that question. The failure to elicit any answer from the witnesses on this point
can only indicate that the defence may have been inconvenienced by the possible
answer that might have been given by the witness or that the witness may have
explained that the writing of the FIR number was only for cross verification of the
details and therefore the FIR number was written at a subsequent point in time."
30 No cross-examination has been effected of the witnesses on this
count. Thus mere mentioning of the FIR number on the seizure memos
would not mean that the memos were prepared after the registration of
the FIR.
31 The trial Court had rightly relied upon the police witnesses; there
being nothing to show that their testimony cannot be relied upon. In fact
in this context, the Apex Court has time and again observed that police
witnesses are not to be treated with distrust and if their testimony is
coherent and reliable, the Courts can act upon it. This has been so held
in 1982 Crl. L. J. 751 Om Parkash Vs. The State. It reads as under:-
"The witnesses from the department of police cannot per se be said to be untruthful
or unreliable. It would depend upon the veracity, credibility and un-impeachability
of their testimony. This Court, after referring to State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of
Bihar, has laid down recently in Kashmiri Lal v. State of Haryana that there is no
absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and
their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at
large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the
testimony of the police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can
definitely act upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the court
finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court
may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness
from the department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on
the principle that quality of the evidence."
32 The conspiracy of the accused to commit the offence is writ large.
Thus in this background, the conviction of the appellants calls for no
interference.
33 On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants have
pleaded mercy. It is argued that the intent of the Legislature can be
gathered from the engraftment of Section 489-C of the IPC which states
that this offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 7
years or with fine; the alternate of fine is an indication that when
conviction is maintained the sentence of fine by itself may be imposed.
Further submission being that each of the three appellants Pankaj
Kumar, Babbu Alvi, Kamaldeep Narula have undergone incarceration
for about 5 months and the sentence already undergone by them may be
treated as the sentence. Needless to state that this position has been
refuted by the learned public prosecutor. The convicted appellants were
found to be in possession of several currency notes; from Babbu Alvi 28
forged notes were recovered, from Pankaj Kumar 71 forged notes were
recovered and from Kamaldeep Narula 34 forged notes were recovered.
Babbu Alvi‟s recovery is not only from his person but also from his
shop. The Court has noted that the face reading of these notes by itself
shows that the notes were forged. The accused had every intention to
use them as genuine. PW-10 although hostile had admitted that one
forged currency note had been given to him by one person which was
later on recovered from PW-10; the recovery memo Ex.PW-6/N which
was a proved document has recited that this forged note had been
handed over to him by Pankaj Kumar. The judgment of Feroz Khan
(supra) where the recovery was of 2 forged notes of Rs. 100 each and
the offence relating back to 25 years would not be applicable to the facts
of the instant case. Role of Gulshan Khan was still more acute. This
Court has maintained his conviction under Section 489-D of the IPC.
Not only 4 forged currency notes but also the printing machine and the
accessory material required for printing forged notes were recovered
from his residence. These Sections i.e. Sections 489-B and 489-C have
been introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the Legislature for more
adequately protecting currency notes and bank notes from forgery. If
such offences go unpunished or a deterrent effect of the conviction is not
passed on to the convict, the entire economy of the country would get
eroded and the faith of the innocent public would be lost.
34 In this background keeping in view that the appellants Babbu
Alvi, Pankaj Kumar and Kamaldeep Narula, who had undergone
sentence of about less than 5 months for the offence which is punishable
with imprisonment up to 7 years cannot be let off. Accordingly, while
maintaining their conviction but setting aside the imprisonment of RI for
4 years which has been imposed by the Sessions Judge on each of the
aforenoted convicts, the appellants Babbu Alvi, Pankaj Kumar and
Kamaldeep Narula are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 14
months each and to pay an additional fine of Rs.30,000/- each in default
of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months. Qua Gulshan Kumar,
whose conviction has been maintained under Section 489-D of the IPC,
while maintaining the conviction his sentence is modified from RI 5
year to RI 20 months with an additional fine of Rs.50,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 4 months.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. will be granted to the appellants.
35 Bail bonds are cancelled; sureties are discharged. Appellants be
taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
36 Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 17, 2014/A
