Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1426/2005 2/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1426 of 2005
With
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1445 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SURESHBHAI
RATILAL - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SADHANA SAGAR for
Appellants : 1 - 2.
Mr.K.P.Raval, APP for the
respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 07/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Both
these appeals arise out of the judgment and order conviction and
sentence dated 8-6-2005 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court no.10, Surat, whereby each of the
appellants-original accused nos.1,2,4 and 5 were sentenced to suffer
R.I.for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, R.I. for
three months in each of the offence punishable under Sections 489(B)
and 489(C)read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly,
the appellants-original accused no.3 was sentenced to suffer R.I. For
five years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default R.I for 3 months in each
of the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while the appellants-original
accused nos.6 and 7 were acquitted.Both the sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
1.1 In
Criminal Appeal no.1426/2005, the appellants-original accused nos.1
and 2 challenge their conviction and sentence while in Criminal
Appeal no.1445/2005, the appellants-original accused nos.4 and 5
challenge their conviction and sentence.
2. Brief
facts of the prosecution case as emerging from the record of the
trial Court are as under:
2.1 On
16-2-2004 a First Information Report was lodged by the Police
Inspector Shri K.K.Patel against the present appellants and other
accused persons with the D.C.B. Police Station which was registered
as CR no.I-13 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections
489(A),(B) and (C )read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It
is alleged therein that the present appellants and other accused
persons in collusion with each other were printing fake currency
notes by using computer and scanner and circulating these currency
notes which were in the denomination of Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.100/-
and Rs.50/- in the market. In this manner, the all the
appellants-accused were causing national loss to the exchequer. In
pursuance of the said complaint, the vehicles of these appellants
came to be intercepted at Rajkot and fake currency notes in the
aforesaid denominations amounting Rs.7,50,000/-were seized in
presence of Panchas and necessary formalities were carried out. On
completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted on
12-5-2004. All the appellants-original accused were arrested and
taken into judicial custody. The case was committed to the Sessions
Court, Surat and was numbered as Sessions Case no.61 of 2004. The
learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court no.10, Surat, framed
charge against the appellants-original accused which was read over
and explained to the appellants-original accused. The
appellants-original accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and
claimed to be tried.
3. To
prove its case against the appellants-original accused the
prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and also produced documentary
evidence. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses was
over, the further statement of the appellants-accused under Section
313 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be recorded in which the
defence of the accused was of total denial and that they were falsely
implicated in the case.
4. On
appreciation, evaluation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution both oral as well as documentary, the
learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court no.10, Surat,passed the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence as stated in para-1 of
the judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Mention
requires to be made here that the learned Counsel for the present
appellants-original accused had confined her arguments only on the
point of reduction in the sentence.
6. Learned
Counsel Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the present appellants-original accused
submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in awarding sentence
in asmuch as though the learned trial Judge arrived at a specific
finding that the all the appellants-original accused nos1,2, 3,4, and
5 played vital and similar role, the sentence awarded to the
appellant-original accused no.3 is lesser than that awarded to the
present appellants-original accused nos.1,2,4 and 5. According to the
learned Counsel all the appellants-original accused nos.1,2,3, 4 and
5 were also convicted for the offence under Sections 489(B) and
489(C) read with Section 34, and therefore, a different yardstick
cannot be applied while awarding the sentence to any of them. She
further submitted that in the interest of justice, the present
appellants be also treated at par with the appellant-original accused
no.3 and be awarded a similar sentence.
7. Learned
A.P.P. Mr. Raval, however, contended that taking into consideration
the offence committed by each of the appellant-accused, the Court may
award appropriate sentence.
8. This
Court has gone through the entire record of the case including the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court no.10, Surat, dated 8-8-2005. I
am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and the
conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge in the impugned
judgment so far as the conviction of the present appellants is
concerned, however, the sentence part requires modification. The
learned Judge in para 60 of the judgment held that the
appellants-original accused nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 have played vital role
in furtherance of a common object of printing and circulating fake
currency notes, and thereby committed the offences punishable under
Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, and therefore held them guilty for these offences. Considering
the fact that the learned trial Judge has arrived at a specific
finding that all these accused have played similar role and committed
the same offence, I am of the considered opinion that both these
appeals deserve to be partly allowed by modifying the sentence only
so as to meet the ends of justice.
9. In
the result, both these appeals
succeed in part and accordingly, they are partly allowed qua the
sentence only. The judgment and order of conviction dated 15-7-2005
rendered in Sessions Case no.61 of 2004 by the learned Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court no.10,Surat in Sessions Case no.61 of 2004
against the appellants-original accused nos.1,2, 4 and 5 convicting
them for the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby confirmed and
maintained.
So
far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant-original accused
nos.1,2,4 and 5, each of them, are sentenced to suffer R.I for five
years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, further R.I. for 3 months
for each of the offence under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Both
these appeals are accordingly partly allowed as indicated
hereinabove.
(M.D.Shah,J.)
lee.
Top