Delhi High Court
Aflaq Ahmad @ Babu vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 14 February, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
$-8 & 9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 14th FEBRUARY,2014
+ CRL.A.No. 1070/2011
SHAKILA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Habibur Rahman, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
SI Nitin, PS Gokalpuri.
AND
+ CRL.A.No. 1517/2011 & CRL.M.B. 1389/2013
AFLAQ AHMAD @ BABU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Riaz Mohammad, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Shakila (A-1) and Aflaq Ahmad @ Babu (A-2) were arrested
in case FIR No. 245/2007 under Sections 489B/489C IPC registered at PS
Gokal Puri and sent for trial. Prosecution case as projected in the charge-
sheet was that on 11.01.2007, Insp. Yogesh Malhotra received a secret
information at about 04.30 P.M. that one lady Shakila (A-1) was engaged
in the business of buying and selling of fake currency notes in
Mustafabad. Daily Diary (DD) No. 8 was recorded in this regard. A
raiding team was constituted and at about 05.20 P.M., A-1 was
apprehended when she was coming out with a polythene bag from her
House No. 878, Gali No. 15, Nehru Vihar, Mustafabad. On checking, the
bag contained fake currency notes to the tune of ` 62,600/- in the
denomination of ` 100 /- and ` 50/-. Pursuant to her disclosure statement,
A-2 was apprehended on 12.04.2007 near her house. He was also found in
possession of fake currency notes of ` 12,000/- in the denomination of `
100/- and ` 50/-. During the course of investigation, statements of the
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants;
they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten
witnesses to prove their guilt. In 313 statements, the appellants denied
their complicity in the crime and claimed innocence. The trial resulted in
their conviction.
2. During arguments, appellants' counsel on instructions stated
at Bar that the appellants have given up challenge to conviction and accept
it voluntarily. However, prayer was made to modify the sentence order as
the appellants have undergone substantial portion of the substantive
sentence awarded to them. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no
objection if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced
to a reasonable extent.
3. Since the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings
on conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and accept it voluntarily in
view of the overwhelming evidence whereby counterfeit currency notes
were recovered from their possession, their conviction under Sections
489C IPC stands affirmed. A-1's nominal roll dated 06.09.2013 reveals
that her detention period till 06.09.2013 was two years, three months and
twenty two days besides remission for seven months and twenty five days.
She is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean antecedents.
Her overall jail conduct was satisfactory. She is aged about 62 years. It is
further informed that she is suffering from various ailments. Considering
the mitigating circumstances, the sentence order is modified and A-1 is
ordered to undergo RI for four years with fine ` 10,000 /- and failing to
pay the fine to undergo SI for one month under Section 489C IPC. A-2's
nominal dated 04.02.2014 reveals that he has suffered custody for two
years, eight months and six days besides remission for seven months and
twenty days as on 04.02.2014. He is also not involved in any other
criminal case and has clean antecedents. His overall jail conduct is
satisfactory. It is informed that he has old parents to maintain them
besides his own family. Considering the mitigating circumstances, the
sentence order is modified and A-2 is ordered to undergo RI for four years
with fine ` 10,000 /- and failing to pay the fine to undergo SI for one
month under Section 489C IPC.
4. Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back
forthwith. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for
information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 14, 2014 / tr
