(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. As all the appeals arise from the common judgement, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. All the appeals are directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.93 of 2006, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted all the accused for the offences under Section 489A, 489B, 489C read with Section 120B of IPC and has imposed sentence for the offence punishable under Section 489A of 10 years' R.I., with the fine of Rs.30,000/- to each of the accused and two years further S.I., for default in payment of fine; for the offence punishable under Section 489B of 10 years' R.I., with the fine of Rs.15,000/- to each of the accused and one year's further S.I., for default in payment of fine; for the offence punishable under Section 489C of 5 years' S.I., with the fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the accused and further one year's S.I., for default in payment of fine; and all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the convicts have also been given set off for the period during which they remained in jail as under-trial prisoners.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 29.10.2005, when the Police Inspector, Mr.J.R. Vala – PW-83 was on duty at Varacha Police Station, Surat, he received the information that in the compound of Suman High School, one Vijay Bachhu Kheni – A-2 and Paresh Gohil – A-1 and other persons were to deal in fake currency, at about 12 O' Clock noon and, therefore, he got the information verified and thereafter asked his subordinates to call for panchas and other surveillance staff of the police department were also called for raid. They reached the spot and at about 12.15 p.m., two persons came from Rachna Society to Suman High School compound and thereafter within short time other two persons came in black colour Hero Honda Splendor and they started talking inter se. At that time, out of those two persons, who came at earlier point of time, one took out bundle of currency notes from his pocket and when by showing the said currencies, was talking, at that time, since the information was found to be correct, they were surrounded by the members of the raiding party. In presence of panchas, the name was asked and the said person introduced himself as Pareshbhai Vanmalibhai Gohil – A-1. Upon the search carried out, it was found that he had currency notes of denomination of 'Rs.100' each, total 398 notes and those were fake currency notes and upon further inquiry it was learnt that the said currency notes were given to him by Vijaybhai Bachubhai Kheni – A-2 for selling to the consumer and the agreed commission was Rs.5,000/-. Upon inquiry with another person, he introduced himself as Vijaybhai Bachubhai Kheni – A-2 in presence of panchas and upon search it was found that in one cotton bag, he was having 600 currency notes of denomination of 'Rs.100' and they were also fake currency notes. In all, the total fake currency notes found were 998, each of 'Rs.100'. Upon further inquiry from A-2, he stated that he has printed the said currency notes with the help of computer and scanner and those fake currency notes were with the purpose to put them into the circulation as genuine currency notes. The other two persons, who came later on Hero Honda Splendor, had got themselves introduced as Haresh Kalubhai Vaghashiya (A-3) and Pradipbhai Ratibhai Asodariya (A-4). Upon search of A-3, mobile was found but no fake currency was found. Upon search of A-4, nothing was found. Thereafter, the complaint was registered with Varacha Police Station.
4. The complaint thereafter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed and the case was thereafter committed to the competent Court being Sessions Case No.93/2006. The Prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 24 witnesses, the details of whom are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 4 of the judgement. The prosecution also produced the documentary evidences of 28 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 5 of the judgement. The learned Judge, thereafter also recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied the evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated and in the further statement, A-1 stated that he was not having any knowledge and nothing was found from his custody and on the basis of the false information, the panchas were called and false case was filed against him. A- 2, in his further statement, stated the same and all other accused, too, stated the same thing.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, heard the prosecution and defence and ultimately found that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has held all the accused guilty for the charged offences. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter also heard the prosecution and the defence on the aspects of sentence and ultimately imposed the sentences as referred to herein above. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
6. We may state that Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2009 has been preferred by Haresh Kalubhai Vaghashiya – A-3; Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2009 has been preferred by Pareshbhai Vanmalibhai Gohil – A-1 and Pradipbhai Ratibhai Asodariya – A-4 jointly; Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2009 has been preferred by Vijay Bachubhai Kheni – A-2; and Criminal Appeal No.1284 of 2009 has been preferred by Bharat Manji Kheni – A-5.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides have taken us to the entire record. We have considered the judgement and the reasons recorded by the learned Judge. We have heard Ms.Sadhan Sagar, learned Counsel for A-1, A-4, A-2 and A-5 and Mr.Majmudar, learned Counsel for A-3 and Mr.Pandya, learned APP for the State in all the appeals.
8. It appears that Mr.Gaurang Prabhubhai Patel – PW- 24, whose deposition is at Exh. 88, was the complainant and also the Raiding Officer. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution for proving that the raid was carried out and at that time two panchas were called and other members of the Raiding Team were Dharamvir Shivnarayan – PW- 12, Mahendra Ramubhai - PW-13 and others. As per his deposition, when the raid was carried out, the fake currency of 398 notes of 'Rs.100' each were found from A-1 and 600 notes of 'Rs.100' each were found from A-2. As per him, he acted as the Investigating Officer and he had recorded the statements of witnesses. The defence in the cross-examination of the said witnesses has not been able to bring about any material contradiction on the aspects of raid carried out by him in presence of the panchas and members of the raiding team, the recovery of the currency from the possession of A-1 and A-2 and the presence of A-3 and A-4 for taking delivery of the currency notes for putting into circulation.
9. The panch witnesses Harishkumar Nathalal Thakkar – PW-1 (Exh. 24) has also fully supported the case of the prosecution for the fake currency found from the possession of A-1 and A-2 and the presence of A-3 and A-4 at the spot when the deal for putting the fake currencies into circulation was to take place. The aspects of search and seizure of the fake currencies are also proved by the testimony of Gaurang Prabhubhai Patel - Exh-
88 and Mr.Harishkumar Nathalal Thakkar – Exh.24.
There is further corroboration of the testimony on the aspects of raid being carried out, the recovery of fake currency from the possession of A-1 and A-2 and the presence of A-3 and A-4 for the purpose of deal for putting into the circulation by the evidence of Dharamvir Shivnarayan – PW-12 (Exh.67), Paresh Nathabhai Solanki – PW-21 (Exh.79), Mahendra Ramubhai A.H.C. - PW-13 (Exh. 68), who were members of the raiding party and were present at the time when the raid was carried out. The defence, in the cross-examination of the concerned witnesses, has not been able to bring about any material contradiction on the aspects of raid being carried out at the place; the fake currency notes found from the possession of A-1 and A-2; the recovery of the fake currency notes; and the presence of A-3 and A-4 for the purpose of putting the currency notes into circulation.
10. The evidence of other witnesses, Chirag Dhirubhai Kamani – PW-2 (Exh. 38), who was panch witness for the discovery of the material of computer, CPU and other accessories was also recorded and the said witness has supported the case of the prosecution for showing that the instruments and the material for fake currencies were recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-2. The panchnama for recovery of other instruments from B-409, Minal De Apartments, the place at which A-2 was staying and where the instruments were kept, has come on record at Exh.41 and from the said place, the CDs were recovered for preserving the memory of currency notes of 'Rs.100'. Demonstration panchnama (Exh.60) has come on record, whereby A-
2 has demonstrated before the panchas the use of CD on the computer for printing of currency notes of Rs.100 and relevant aspect is that the panch of the said panchnama, Dharmesh – PW-10 (Exh.59) has supported the case of the prosecution for preparation of the panchnama and the contents of the panchnama for the purpose of showing demonstration by the mode through which the fake currencies were being printed with the help of CD and the computer by A-2.
11. Learned Counsel for A-2 did contend that Dharmesh – PW-10 could not identify A-2 and, therefore, the demonstration panchnama (Exh.60) prepared at his instance may not be relied upon by this Court for the purpose of considering the case of the prosecution.
12. In our view, it is true that the identification by the panch is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration, but the panchnama was prepared on 4.11.2005, whereas the witness is examined on 3.7.2007. Therefore, when he has stood by the demonstration made in his presence, merely because he did not remember the person, who demonstrated on computer for printing of currencies, in our view, would not be sufficient to discard the evidence laid by the prosecution for the manner and mode in which A-2 used to print the currencies with the help of CDs and computer. It may also be recorded that it is not a matter where the prosecution case is based on only demonstration panchnama and there being no other corroborative material for the fake currency being in possession of A-2. Hence, we find that the said aspect should not result into frustrating the case of the prosecution for showing the use of the instruments of CDs and Computer by A-2 for printing of fake currency. The other evidences of the other witnesses, in our view, are in consonance with the story of the prosecution for the possession of the computer with A-2 and A-5 at one point of time was residing with A-2 and A-5 had delivered certain items, which, as per the prosecution case, was computer and others to the person in occupation of the flat representing the same as belonging to A-2. The place at which A-2 used to make use of the computer has also come on record and further the fact of A-2 having sold the computer to another person, Vikas Sureshkumar Agrawal – A-18 has also come on record. The evidence of Bharat – PW-14 (Exh.70), Anitaben Bharatbhai Chudasma – PW-15 (Exh.71) and Dhananjay – PW-16 (Exh. 72) shows that A-2 with A-5 was residing at the place of Minal De Apartments.
13. The learned Counsel for all the accused and more particularly Ms.Sadhana Sagar for A-1 to A-5, except for A-3, raised first contention that the charge was defective charge and no evidence has come on record for showing that the currency notes of Rs.100 denomination of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- was put into circulation or was printed by A-2 as mentioned in the charge. She, therefore, submitted that the charge being defective, all the accused be extended the benefits, since it can be said that the prejudiced is caused to the accused for defence. She also submitted that no evidence has come on record for the said charge and, therefore, the charge is not proved. It was submitted that if the charge is not proved the accused would be entitled to the acquittal.
14. It is hardly required to be stated that when the evidence is to be taken into consideration, the charge framed does matter, but at the same time, if the evidence has come for the lesser charge, the Court while considering the guilt of the accused concerned can convict the accused on the basis of the evidence found and available on record. As per the testimony of Gaurang Prabhubhai Patel – PW-24 (Exh. 88) in his cross- examination, he has admitted that no evidence has transpired during the investigation against all the accused that currency notes were put into circulation. Therefore, for actual circulation of fake currency as genuine, which was one of the charges, cannot be said as proved, but at the same time possessing fake currency and intending to put in circulation as genuine, are also offences under IPC.
15. We may record that the learned Judge has not convicted the accused for the offence under Section 489D, but has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 489A, 489B and 489C. Therefore, the evidence on record may be required to be examined to that extent and if it is found that the offence is constituted, it cannot be said that the accused would be entitled to the benefits of acquittal, more particularly because in the charge the factual aspect was shown in addition to the aspects of printing and possessing the fake currency and intending to put into circulation as genuine.
16. It was contended by the learned Counsel for A-3 and A-4 that no fake currency was found from the possession of A-3 and A-4 and, therefore, they would be entitled to the acquittal. The learned Counsel further submitted that, in any case, it may be termed as an attempt to commit offence and hence, the gravity of the offence would be less and the sentence would not be at par with the sentence as imposed by the learned Judge.
17. On the aspects of quantum of sentence, we shall deal with the matter at a later stage. However, it is not possible for us to accept the contention that merely because no fake currencies were found from the actual position of A-3 and A- 4, it cannot be said that they have not committed the offence, since the charge was also with Section 120B of IPC read with Section 489A, Section 489B and Section 489C. Further, we find that it is not a matter where the presence of A-3 and A-4 was by way of natural conduct, nor it is a matter where A-3 and A-4 have explained the circumstances in the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for showing their presence otherwise. As per the prosecution case and it is proved that A-3 and A-4 came on the spot to take the delivery of fake currency and, therefore, in the conspiracy for putting the fake currency into circulation, it cannot be said that the case was not proved but at the same time it is a fact that before they could take the delivery of the fake currency the police and the members of the raiding party intercepted and deal for the receipt of the fake currencies and putting them into circulation by A-3 and A-4 was not realized.
18. But in our view, such aspect may assume importance for the purpose of quantum of sentence, but thereby it cannot be said that the offence, in the conspiracy of fake currencies and putting into circulation as genuine, was not proved.
19. The aforesaid discussion and the overall re- appreciation of the evidence by us show that the prosecution had proved the case against A-2 for committing offence for counterfeiting the currency notes and of possessing fake currency and for selling the same to another person to be used as genuine. The above referred evidence laid by the prosecution against A-2 for the use of CD and the demonstration panchnama and actual possession of 600 fake currency notes found proves that A-2 had printed the fake currency and was in possession of the fake currency. Further, the evidence found at the spot for recovery of the fake currency in possession of A-1, who said to have received from A-2 coupled with the background of printing of fake currency and the commission to be offered of Rs.5,000/- shows that the offence under Section 489B was also proved against A-2.
20. However, so far as A-1 is concerned, he was found to be in possession of the fake currency and he has received the fake currency to be used as genuine, but the fact remains that those fake currencies were not put into circulation, which were in possession of A-1 as genuine. Therefore, it appears to us that the offence against A-1 could be said as proved under Section 489C, but as the charge is also under Section 120B of IPC and he was found at the spot with the possession of the fake currency, it can be said that the offence under Section 489B was proved to the extent of participating in an attempt to put the fake currency into circulation.
21. However, as regards A-3 and A-4 , since no fake currency was found from their possession, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 489C was proved against them, but since the charge is also for the offence under Section 489B read with Section 120B, it can be said that the offence under Section 489B is proved being part of the conspiracy to put the fake currency into circulation, but with the fact that neither such currencies were handed over to A-3 and A-4, nor they actually put the said fake currencies into circulation. The aforesaid shows that in any case, the charge under Section 489A is not proved against A-1, A-3 and A-4 and it is only proved against A-2.
22. As per the prosecution case, A-5 was one of the persons, accompanied A-2 in printing of fake currencies, since he was residing together.
However, we find that except the statement of the co-accused A-2, there is no independent evidence produced by the prosecution for role played by A- 5, except to the extent of handing over of certain material of computer by A-5 at the flat of Minal De Apartments, stating that such material belonged to A-2. In our view, such cannot be termed as an independent material sufficient enough to hold A-5 guilty for the charged offences. The same is coupled with the circumstances that A-5 was not found at the spot, nor any fake currencies were found from the possession of A-5. Therefore, it appears to us that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against A-5 for the charged offences.
23. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that the conviction of A-2 for the offence under Section 489A, Section 489B and Section 489C by the learned Sessions Judge in view of the reasons recorded by us herein above cannot be said to be illegal and no interference is called for. However, since as per the evidence of I.O., no evidence transpired for actual circulation of the fake currencies as genuine, the gravity of the offence could be said as diluted to some extent. The learned Sessions Judge has imposed sentence for the offence under Section 489A and Section 489B for 10 years' R.I., for each of the offences, which we find that the same deserves to be modified by reducing the same to 8 years' R.I., for A-2. However, so far as the fine imposed and the default sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge upon A-2 is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
24. The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for holding A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 489A cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, the same is set aside. Consequently, A-1 shall stand acquitted for the charged offence under Section 489A of IPC. However, the judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for holding A-1 guilty and for convicting for the offence under Section 489C does not deserve to be interfered with. Further the sentence for the offence under Section 489C is of 5 years' R.I., as against the maximum sentence of 7 years' R.I. Therefore, the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 489C by the learned Sessions Judge upon A-1 with the fine and also with the default sentence do not deserve to be interfered with. We also fine that the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge of A-1 for the offence under Section 489B does not deserve to be interfered with, but as he is the person, who, as per the case of the prosecution, said to have received fake currencies from A-2 with the fact that such fake currencies were not put into circulation, it would be appropriate to impose sentence upon A-1 for 5 years' R.I., with the same fine and default sentence with the fine of Rs.10,000/-, but with the same default sentence for non-payment, instead of Rs.15,000/- as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.
25. The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for convicting A-3 and A-4 for the offence under Section 489A, 489C, in our view cannot be sustained, since the prosecution has not been able to prove the case that they have played any role in printing of any fake currency notes, nor it is proved that they were found to be in possession of the fake currency notes. However, so far as the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for offence under Section 489B against A-3 and A-4 is concerned, the same deserves to be maintained, but in our view, the fact that no fake currencies were found from their possession, nor they actually took the delivery of fake currencies and consequently the question of putting the fake currencies into circulation did not arise, we find that the gravity of the offence shall be reduced and consequently appropriate sentence for the offence under Section 489B upon A-3 and A-4 would be sentence undergone (which as per jail report is 3 years and few days) with the fine of Rs.5,000/- each with the further sentence of six months' S.I., for default in payment of fine. No case is proved by the prosecution against A-5 and, therefore, A-5 is acquitted from the charged offence under Section 489A, Section 489B and Section 489C and the judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for conviction and sentence upon A-5 deserves to be set aside.
26. Hence, the following orders:-
(a) The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.93/2006 is set aside for holding A-5 guilty for the conviction and imposition of sentence. A-5, Bharatbhai Manjibhai Kheni (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1284/2009) shall be put to liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required for any lawful purpose.
(b) The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for conviction of A-3 and A-4 (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.618/2009 - Haresh Kalubhai Vaghashiya – A-3 and Pradipbhai Ratibhai Asodariya – A-4 - Appellant No.2 of Criminal Appeal No.875 of 2009) for the offence under Section 489A, 489C is set aside and the accused are acquitted for the said charges of offence under Section 489A and 489C. The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed for conviction of A-3 and A-4 for the offence under Section 489B, but the sentence shall be for the period of sentence already undergone with the fine of Rs.5,000/- each and six months' S.I., for default in payment of fine.
(c) The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for holding A-1 (Pareshbhai Vanmalibhai Gohil) (Appellant No.1 of Criminal Appeal No.875/2009) guilty for offence under Section 489A is set aside, but is maintained for the offence under Section 489C and 489B and the sentence shall be of 5 years' R.I., (in place of 10 years' R.I., as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge) with the same fine and the same default sentence as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.
(d) The judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge for convicting A-2 (Vijaybhai Bachubhai Kheni) (Appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1064/2009) for the offence under Section 489A, 489B and 489C is confirmed, but the sentence shall be of 8 years' R.I., (as against 10 years' R.I., imposed by the learned Sessions Judge) for the offence under Section 489A and Section 489B with the same fine and the same default sentence as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. The sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge upon A-2 for the offence under Section 489C is not interfered with.
(e) The other directions issued by the learned Sessions Judge for sentence to be undergone concurrently and for the set off the period during which the concerned appellants remained in jail as under-trial prisoners are also not interfered with.
27. All the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (Paresh Upadhyay, J.) vinod