Delhi High Court
Mohd. Jafar vs The State on 9 May, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
$-9 & 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 9th MAY, 2014
+ CRL.A.No. 864/2012
MOHD. JAFAR ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate
with Mr.Gautam Khazanchi,
Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
AND
+ CRL.A.No. 910/2012
MOHD. JAMAL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Mohit Madan, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. The appellants, Mohd.Jafar (A-1) and Mohd.Jamal (A-2)
impugn their conviction under Sections 489 B/489C/34 IPC by a
judgment dated 04.06.2012 of Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.
41/10/09 arising out of FIR No. 90/2009 PS Geeta Colony. By an order
dated 07.06.2012, they were awarded RI for seven years with fine `
20,000/- each under Section 489B/34 IPC and RI for three years with fine
` 10,000/- each under Section 489C/34 IPC. Both the sentences were
directed to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-
sheet, was that on 28.04.2009 at about 05.30 P.M., a secret information
was received that two persons were to deliver two fake currency notes in
the denomination of ` 1,000/- each in exchange of a genuine currency
note of ` 1,000/-. A raiding team was organised. HC Rajender (PW-6)
was made a decoy customer and was given one currency note of ` 1,000/-
bearing No. 4CD 591459. When he struck deal at around 06.10 P.M., both
the appellants were apprehended. On search, 98 and 80 currency notes in
the denomination of ` 1,000/- each were recovered from the possession of
A-1 and A-2 respectively. During investigation, statements of the
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they
were duly charged and brought to trial. Supplementary charge-sheet
against Qamar Abbas was submitted. However, vide order dated
13.05.2010, he was discharged of the offence. The prosecution examined
seven witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the
appellants denied their complicity in the crime; pleaded false implication
and examined five witnesses in defence. The trial resulted in their
conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have
preferred the appeals.
3. During the course of hearing, Counsel on instructions stated
at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the
Trial Court on conviction and accept it voluntarily. They, however, prayed
to modify the sentence order as the appellants have remained in custody
for substantial period and are not the previous convict. Learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.
4. Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings
of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 489B/489C/34 IPC in view
of the cogent and reliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses coupled
with recovery of the fake currency notes, their conviction stands affirmed.
The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years
with total fine ` 30,000/- each. A-1's nominal roll dated 19.09.2013
reveals that he has already undergone one year, eleven months and four
days incarceration besides remission for three months and twenty-five
days as on 19.09.2013. It further records that he is not involved in any
other criminal case and is not a previous convict. He is a first time
offender. Sentence order records that he has four minor children to take
care. A-2 is also in custody for the same period and is stated to be not
involved in any other criminal case. A-2's sentence order records that he
was aged about 34 years and has a family consisting of wife and aged
widow mother. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the fact
that the appellants have clean antecedents, sentence order is modified and
the substantive sentence for RI for seven years is reduced to four years.
Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.
5. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application (if any) also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent
back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent
to the Superintendent jail for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 09, 2014 / tr
