State Of J&K vs Abdul Rehman Challoo And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 842 j&K

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT JAMMU



                                           CRAA 70/2012

                                         Reserved on: 06.08.2021
                                    Pronounced on: 09 .08.2021


State of J&K                                       ... Appellant(s)
                          Through: -Mr.Vishal Bharti Dy.AG

                   Vs.

Abdul Rehman Challoo and another

                                                     Respondent(s)
                          Through: - None

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR JUDGE



                            JUDGMENT

1 This Criminal Acquittal Appeal by the State is directed against

the judgment dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Udhampur ['trial Court'] in file No. File No. 35/Session titled 'State

of J&K Versus Abdul Rehman Challoo and another (FIR No.

368/2003 under Sections 489-B/489-C/120-B RPC).

2 With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by

learned counsel for the appellant, it is apt to briefly take note of the

prosecution case as was put up before the trial Court:

On 14.12.2003, a source report was received in the Police Station, Udhampur that the respondents were having association with anti national elements and were helping their activities by managing fake currency from Delhi, to be used in Kashmir Valley to destabilize the country. The police was further informed that the respondents had brought the consignment of counterfeit currency notes from Delhi in a Fiat Car No.JKOlB-2880 and were staying in 2 CRAA /2007

Udhampur. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case FIR No. 368/2003 was registered in P/S Udhampur and the investigation set in motion.

A naka was laid at new Bus Stand, Udhampur on Jammu-Srinagar National Highway at about 7 pm and a Fiat Car bearing registration No. JKOlB-2880 which was going from Udhampur towards Traffic Check Post, Udhampur was intercepted. Respondent No.2 was driving it, while respondent No.1 was sitting on the front seat. On search, a bag was found in possession of respondent No. 1 which contained a suit and a shawl etc. The suit was further searched and 11 currency notes of 500 denomination were recovered from the said suit. The currency notes were found to be counterfeit and were, accordingly, seized. The respondents were taken in custody. The seized currency notes were sent to FSL for examination. The FSL expert confirmed that the seized currency notes were counterfeit and, accordingly, investigation was carried further. After collecting the relevant evidence, the Investigating Officer concluded that the respondents were, prima facie, guilty of commission of offences alleged and, accordingly, submitted the final report/challan before the trial Court.

3 The trial Court in the light of evidence collected by the

Investigating Officer and presented with the final report framed the

charges under section 489-C/34 RPC against the respondents. The

prosecution with a view to bring home the charge against the

respondents produced and examined PWs Joginder Kumar, Parvez

Sazad, Rajesh Kumar, Daya Nand, Hukam Chand, Rakesh Hangloo,

Sunil Kumar, Mohan Lal Thakur and Abdul Qayoom.

4 On the conclusion of prosecution evidence, incriminating

material emerging therefrom was put to the respondents and their 3 CRAA /2007

statements under Section 342 CrPC were recorded in which they

simply denied their involvement in the commission of offences

attributed to them. However, the respondents chose not to lead any

evidence in defence.

5 The trial Court considered the evidence on record and after

hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel

representing the respondents, concluded that, though the prosecution

had apparently established that 11 currency notes of 500

denomination were recovered from the vehicle in question in which

the respondents were travelling, yet it was not established by the

prosecution by any evidence that at the time of recovery of the

seizure currency notes, the respondents knew that the currency in

their possession was forged or they had reason to believe it to be so,

nor was it proved that the respondents intended to use it as genuine

or it might have been used as genuine. Having found that the

necessary ingredients of Section 489-C of CrPC had not been

proved, the trial Court dismissed the challan and acquitted the

respondents of the offences which they were charged with. It is this

judgment of acquittal which is assailed by the State on the ground

that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence, oral as

well as circumstantial and has erroneously held that the offence was

not proved by sufficient evidence by the prosecution. The impugned

judgment is also assailed on the ground that that the trial Court

adopted a very hyper technical approach and acquitted the

respondents despite the fact that the prosecution had led sufficient

evidence to establish the recovery of counterfeit currency notes from 4 CRAA /2007

the possession of the respondents and also that they had nexus with

the anti-national elements and were helping their activities by

managing fake currency from Delhi, to be used in Kashmri Valley

for militant activities.

6 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court was

the only plausible view that could have been taken in the face of

evidence led by the prosecution.

7 After carefully going through the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, one would tend to agree with the learned counsel for the

State that the prosecution had proved that the counterfeit currency

notes i.e 11 notes of 500 denomination were recovered from the

conscious possession of the respondents. The expert evidence of PW

Raksh Hangloo also confirmed that the seized currency notes were

counterfeit. But, as rightly observed by the trial Court, that is not end

of the matter. Section 489-C RPC which the respondents have been

charged with, reads thus:

"489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency- notes or bank-notes-Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both"

                                          5     CRAA /2007


8     From a plain reading of the Section reproduced, it is

abundantly clear that with a view to bring home the charge of

possession of forged or counterfeit notes in terms of Section 489-C

RPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients

beyond reasonable doubt:

(i) that the suspected currency notes or bank notes were found and recovered from the possession of the accused;

(ii) that the suspected currency notes were found to be and were forged or counterfeit;

(iii) that the accused knew or it had reasons to believe that the currency notes possessed by him were forged or counterfeit; and

(iv) that the accused, who were found in possession of counterfeit currency intended to use it as genuine or that it may be used as genuine.

9 Unless the aforesaid ingredients are proved, the accused

cannot be held guilty of commission of offence under Section 489 C

RPC. In the instant case, the prosecution has, to a greater extent,

proved the first two ingredients, but has failed to prove that at the

time of their possession, the respondents knew that the currency

seized from them was forged or they had a reason to believe it to be

forged. There is not even an iota of evidence to show that the

respondents had intended to use it as genuine or that it may be used

as genuine.

10 The trial Court after appreciating the material in the light of

provisions of Section 489 C RPC and placing strong reliance upon

the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Umashanker vs.

State of ChattisgarH, AIR 2001 SC. 3074 and M. Mammutti vs. 6 CRAA /2007

State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC. 1705, rightly concluded that the

prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the

respondents convincingly.

11 For the foregoing reasons, I am not persuaded to take a view in

the matter different from the one taken by the trial Court. It is an

appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the power of the

Appellate Court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal are

circumscribed. Even if the appellate Court, on analysing the evidence

on record, is of the opinion that two views are possible, yet the

appellate Court would prefer the view which goes to the benefit of

the accused. In this regard, reference can be made to a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao

Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"The principles relating to interference by the High Court in appeals against acquittal are well settled. While the High Court can review the entire evidence and reach its own conclusions, it will not interfere with the acquittal by the trial court unless there are strong reasons based on evidence which can dislodge the findings arrived by the trial court, which were the basis for the acquittal. The High Court has to give due importance to the conclusions of the trial court, if they had been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two 7 CRAA /2007

views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (vide G. B. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978 (4) SCC 371: Babu v. State of U.P,- 1988 (2) SCC 21: Awadhesh v. State of M.P, 1988 (2) SCC 557: Thanedar Singh v. State of M.P, 2002 (1) SCC 487: and State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram, 2003 (8) SCC

180. Keeping the said principles in view, we will examine the evidence to find out whether the findings of the trial court were not based on evidence and whether there was justification for the High Court to interfere with the decision of the trial court".

12 In view of the circumscribed scope of interference with the

judgment of acquittal, I am not inclined to interfere with the

impugned judgment. I, accordingly, dismiss this appeal and uphold

the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.

Trial Court record, if summoned/received, be sent down along

with copy of this judgement.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE Jammu 09 .08.2021 Sanjeev PS

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No