Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Bhoi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10809 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
KAMLESH BHOI S/O NANDLAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
475, G-BLOCK TOPRI BIRLAGRAM NAGDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THR. P.S. BIRLAGRAM DISTRICT UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI H.S. RATHORE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
Reserved on : 01.02.2024
Pronounced on : 26.02.2024
T h is criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for orders,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passing the following :
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant being crestfallen by the judgment
dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod,
District-Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 523/2014 whereby the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 10 years
R.I. with fine of Rs.1,000/- and usual default stipulation.
02. As per the prosecution story, on 21.06.2014, the appellant went to the
complainant Shantilal's restaurant namely Gungun Restaurant at Jaora Road,
Bhagwatipuri. The appellant ordered at the restaurant and gave a note of
Rs.100/- on which there was no picture of Gandhiji at a side. So, the restaurant
worker asked for another note in exchange but that note was also similar to the
first note even the numbers printed were same so the restaurant workers caught
the appellant with the help of Hansraj and took him to the police station with
those notes and lodged a report. Enquiry was initiated over the oral report by
the complainant. During the investigation, the information received by Kamlesh
t h e counterfeit notes were seized from the possession of co-accused Anil
Patidar, Shubham and Ajay. Thereafter, an offence was registered under
Sections 489(B), 489(C), 489(D) of IPC against all accused and final report was
submitted.
03. The police party, following due procedure, arrested the appellants
and registered the case against them. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was filed against the appellants under Sections 489(B), 489(C) & 489(D) of
IPC.
04. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined
total 8 witnesses namely Hansraj (PW-1), Mukesh (PW-2), Shantilal (PW-3),
Vijay (PW-4), Mukesh Panwar (PW-5), Sonu (P.W.-6), Amrit Tigga (PW-7) &
Nikhil Jain (PW-8). No witness has been examined in support of the defence.
The appellant abjured their guilt and they took a plea that they are innocent.
05. The learned trial Court having relied upon the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and other documents like FIR and examination report of
suspected note, convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned in para-1
of this judgment.
06. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal on several grounds
but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant did not
press this appeal on merits and not assail the finding part of judgment. He
confines his arguments on the point of sentence. Counsel for the appellant
assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He
also submitted that the appellant has suffered more than 04 and 1/2 years of
custody period. H e further submitted that he is having regard to all
circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction. Further keeping in view
the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for
almost 10 years, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be partly allowed and the
sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.
0 7 . On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction by
submitting that evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to seizure of
counterfeit currency from the possession of appellant is consistent. Therefore,
he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
08. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the findings of learned
trial Court regarding conviction of the applicant and the order of passing the
sentence is incorrect in the eyes of law and facts.
09. Since, learned counsel for the appellant himself has not contended
regarding finding of conviction, the matter is not required to be thorough
examination. However, as this Court is considering the matter as first appellate
Court, this Court is judiciously bound to go through the merits of conviction.
10. In this case, Hansraj PW-1 has specifically stated that at the time of
incident, he was working at Gungun restaurant. On the date of incident, accused
came and took some food and cold drinks and in lieu of that he paid Rs.100/-
on which photo of Mahatma Gandhi Ji was not visible and colours were not
clearly visualized. Hence, the owner of the shop Shantipall has asked the
appellant to change that note. On the contrary, the appellant has not changed the
note but started abusing him. Thereafter, the police was called and 8-9
counterfeit currency notes were seized from possession of the appellant.
Shantilal PW-3, shop owner has also supported the prosecution case and the
statements of these witnesses have not been controverted in cross-examination.
Vijay PW-4, Mukesh Panwar, PW-5 and Sonu PW-6 have not supported the
seizure of notes and arrest memo of accused, but it is well fortified by the
Police Inspector Amrit Tigga PW-7. As such, the seizure of counterfeit
currency notes from the accused has been well proved by the prosecution,
therefore, the finding of learned trial Court regarding conviction under Section
489(b) of IPC does not warrant any interference.
11. So far as the sentence is concerned, certainly, the appellant has
already completed four years and six months out of the 10 years of his jail
incarceration and he also suffered the ordeal of the case since last 10 years, to
meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to partly allow the appeal and
the sentence of the appellant is reduced to 05 Years R.I. from 10 years R.I. by
enhancement the fine amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant shall
undergo for five years R.I. with fine of Rs.50,000/-. In case of failure to deposit
the fine amount, the appellant shall further to undergo for six months R.I.
13. The appellant shall be released on bail after completion of five years
of his jail sentence subject to deposit the fine amount.
14. His bail bond shall be discharged, if any thereafter.
15. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
16. Pending application, if any stands closed.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
