JUDGMENT
A.S. Bagga, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 17th November, 1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagtri, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1986, thereby convicting the Appellant (Original Accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C and three years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :
On 20.2.1986, one Manisha Mohan (P.W. No. 3) had gone to Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Bank) at its Dabhol Branch for depositing a sum of Rs. 4000/- in the account of her husband Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4). Krishnakant Gadekar, Accountant of the Bank, examined as P.W. No. 2. while counting the notes, suspected genuinencess of some of the currency notes. He took out those currency notes numbering 13 from the bundle and showed those currency notes to Suhas Narkar (P.W. No. 1). the Sub-Accountant and Incharge Manager of the said Bank. Suhas Narkar (P.W. 1) along with Krishnakant Gadekar (P.W. No. 2) examined those currency notes closely and found that they were forged/counterfeit currency notes. The reasons for becoming suspicious were that printing of the currency notes was not proper and that same number, namely, AB/3-952610 was found on two currency notes. Both the Officers of the Bank questioned Manlsha Mohan (P.W. 3) as to how she got those notes. Manisha stated that those notes were given to her husband by his employer, the present Appellant (Original Accused). At about the same time, one Ganesh Kardekar also visited the Bank. He tendered a sum of Rs. 1742.50 to the Cashier Krishnakant Gadekar. From the money tendered by the said Ganesh Kardekar (examined as P.W. 5), six currency notes were also looked fake/forged. Those notes were also of Rs. 100/- denomination. Ganesh Kardekar, on being questioned, also stated that he got those notes from the Appellant Abdul Fakirsaheb Mamtule. Subsequently, one Vijay Kudalkar (P.W. 6) himself came in the Bank by about 5.00 p.m. He brought 37 notes of Rs. 100/-denomination. out of which 17 notes were suspected to be forged. He also informed the Bank officials that those notes were given to him by the Appellant. These 17 notes, though not handed over to the Bank officials, were attached later on by police. After having collected the aforsald notes, the Sub-Accountant, R.D,C.C. Bank, who was holding charge as Manager. namely, Suhas Narkar lodged report at the Police Station at Exhibit 7. At the time of lodging the report. 13 currency notes which were found in the bundle handed over by Manisha Mohan, and 6 currency notes which were found from the money tendered by Ganesh Kardekar, were handed over to the police. P.S.I. Vijay Jagtap (P.W. 8), who was attached to Dapoll Police Station, received the report and reduced it into writing at Exhibit 7. The accused was arrested by him vide arrest panchanama (Exhibit 40).
From the possession of the accused. 5 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were also seized. Thereafter, P.S.I. Vijay Jagtap seized 8 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination from the upper portion of the suitcase in the house of the Appellant. There were currency notes worth Rs. 20,000/- of Rs. 100/ denomination, which were, however, not seized, since they were not forged currency notes, according to the prosecution. The 17 currency notes, which were received from Vijay Kudalkar, were attached under panchanama Exhibit 8. Those currency notes were also shown to the Bank officials. Thus, in all, 59 forged currency notes were seized by the police. These currency notes were sent by P.S-I. Shankar Thakur (P.W. 9) to the Currency Notes Press, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Maharashtra State, for an expert’s opinion vide letter at Exhibit 21. Subsequently, expert’s opinion was received vide Exhibit 22. Thus, on the basis of the investigation and the expert’s opinion on forged notes, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused/appellant and the absconding accused, the brother of the present accused/appellant.
3. Since the offences punishable under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code were and are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri. Only the Appellant was tried, as his brother, the absconding accused, was not traceable. When the charge was read over and explained to the Appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the charges. The defence of the Appellant/Accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that his brother Abdul Rehlman Mamtule, i.e., the absconding accused, served in Quwait; that his brother was interested in constructing his own house: that his brother had handed over a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the Appellant for construction of his brother’s house. The Appellant finally stated in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had been spending money from the amount given to him by his brother, and paid the amount to different persons, and that he had no knowledge that the currency notes were fake/counterfeit notes.
4. On the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses to whom the currency notes of Rs. 100/- denominations were paid by the Appellant and taking into account the oral evidence of the Accountant and the Cashier of the Bank and the expert opinion from the Currency Notes Press, Jail Road, Nashik Road, the learned Judge, before whom the Appellant was tried, reached the conclusion that the Appellant was found trafficking in forged/ counterfeit currency notes, having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded to convict the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the Appellant/Accused, as stated above, by the impugned Judgment and Order.
5. I have heard Shri Ranjit Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant and M/s. R. Y. Mirza and K. V. Saste, learned A.P.P.s for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, the evidence recorded in this case and record and proceedings of this case have been examined. The Judgment of the learned Trial Judge has also been scrutinised.
6. First of all, it would be seen that 59 currency notes were sent by P.S.I. Shankar Thakur (P.W. 9) to the Currency Notes Press, Nashik, for
expert opinion on the alleged forged notes along with the letter at Exhibit 21 and the numbers of these notes were mentioned in the said letter. The expert opinion is on record at Exhibit 22. It states that the entire print of the paper of the forged notes was executed on two thin pieces of papers separately and ultimately pasted together after imitating water marked security thread, etc.. to form a complete note; that the quality of printing was not upto the mark; and the style of prefixing number was crude and not matching with the style used for genuine numbering. Thus, the currency notes number 59 which were sent to the Currency Notes Press, Nashik Road, have been duly proved to be forged notes. There remains no doubt in this record.
7. The description of the 59 notes which were sent for expert opinion has been given in the letter (Exhibit 21) sent by P.S.I. Shankar Thakur. Out of these 59 currency notes, 13 notes were handed over to the police by Suhas Narkar (P.W. No. 1), who happened to be the Sub-Accountant in the R.D.C.C. Bank, and was holding the charge of Manager; 6 notes were alleged to have been produced before the police by Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5]; 5 notes were seized each from Sou. Manisha (P.W. No. 3). and her husband Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4); 3 notes were recovered from the Appellant at the time of his arrest and finally remaining 8 currency notes were allegedly recovered from the Appellant from his suitcase. 17 notes were with Vijay Kudalkar [P.W. No. 6) who himself suspected the genuineness of the notes and approached Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5).
8. Manisha (P.W. No. 3) In her evidence deposed at Exhibit 9 that her husband was a carpenter and that he worked for the Appellant, who paid him Rs. 5000/- in one hundred rupee denomination as his wages. She further stated that out of the said amount Rs. 500/- were kept by her and another sum of Rs. 500/- was retained by her husband. She came to the Bank to deposit the sum of Rs. 4000/- and while counting the notes, Cashier Krishnakant Gadekar (P.W. No. 2) found that 13 currency notes were different and, therefore, he took out those notes and approached the Incharge Manager of the Bank, viz., Suhas Narkar (P.W. No. 6). The Cashier of the Bank Krishnakant Gadekar (P.W. No. 2) corroborates the evidence of Manisha (P.W. No. 3) in all material particulars. Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4) is the husband of Manisha (P.W. No. 3). who also deposed to have paid a sum of Rs. 4000/- to his wife Manisha, who, in turn, went to the Bank. Suhas Narkar, Incharge Manager of the Bank, has also been examined as P.W. No. 1. His narration also corroborates whatever has been stated by the Cashier Krishnakant Gadekar (P.W. No. 2). Manisha (P.W. 3) and her husband Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4). Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5) who works as clerk with Parkar Saw Mill at Dabhol, has deposed that the Appellant-Accused had visited their Saw Mill on 19th February, 1986 and that Accused paid them a sum of Rs. 742.50 towards the cutting charges of the timber which the Accused had brought to their Saw Mill. This witness further deposed to have gone to the Bank to pay electricity bill of Rs. 1742.50. It has also come in his evidence that those currency notes were taken out from the amount paid by the Appellant-Accused and given to the Cashier of the Bank. So the currency notes were taken from Manisha (P.W. No. 3) and Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5) by the Cashier Krishnakant Gadekar (P.W. No. 2) and the Bank Incharge Manager Suhas
Narkar (P.W. No. l) and finally the report at Exhibit 7 came to be filed with the police on 20.2.1986. A sum of Rs. 500/- came to be recovered each from Manisha (P.W. No. 3) and her husband Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4). There is evidence of the Investigating Officer Vijay Jagtap (P.W. 8) that five currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were attached from the possession of the Appellant at the time of his arrest vide panchanama at Exhibit No. 14. Subseqenlly, the amount subsequently 8 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were seized from the upper portion of the suitcase in the house of the Appellant/Accused. It is also stated that currency notes worth Rs. 20,OOO/- which were not forged currency notes were also found with the Appellant (Accused). But they were not seized.
9. The evidence of the witnesses, who have been examined, is natural and there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit the testimony of the witnesses examined in this case. There is no doubt that the forged currency notes were received by witness Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4), a carpenter by profession, who worked for the Appellant and that the Appellant paid him Rs. 5,OOO/- in one-hundred rupees denomination as his wages. Similarly, Vijay Kudalkar (P.W. No. 6) and Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5) also were given different amounts by the Appellant. The Appellant also admitted that he paid different sums of money to different people in connection with construction of the house of his brother, the absconding accused. The defence, as stated earlier, as taken under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as also the contentions raised during arguments, is that the Appellant had no knowledge that the currency notes with him were fake or counterfeit/forged currency notes.
10. It was rightly contended by Shri Ranjit Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant, that mere possession of a forged currency note is not an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It was also argued that the burden is on the prosecution to prove that at the time when the accused was possessing the currency notes, he knew that they were forged notes, and mere possession of them by him, does not foist the burden on him to account for its possession and to prove innocent possession thereof. No authority for this proposition of law need be cited. It is rightly contended that the burden is on the prosecution to establish that the accused, at the time of possession by him of currency notes knew that they were forged currency notes.
11. On persual of Section 489-B and 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, it would be seen that Section 489-B seeks to punish the trafficking or using of the forged currency notes as genuine currency notes, while Section 489-C seeks to punish mere possession of forged currency notes. The ingredient which is common to both the Sections, however, is that it must be established/proved that the accused had either knowledge or that he had reason to believe that the currency notes were forged currency notes. As has been observed in the case between Bur Singh v. Emperor, cited by Shri Ranjit Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant, that “the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresistibly to the inference that the accused had the intention to foist the notes on the public and such intention,
relating as it does to a future conduct, could only be proved by collateral circumstances such as that the accused had palmed off such notes before, or that he was in possession of such and similar notes in such large numbers that his possession for any other purpose is inexplicable.”
12. InHamidAliv. State,’, a ruling, again cited by Shri Ranjit Bhosale. learned Counsel for the Appellant, it has been observed that “under Sections 489-B and 489-C, guilt is fastened on the ground of’knowledge’ or ‘ reason to believe’. The two are more or less ejusdem generis, though knowledge will be on a slightly higher plane than reason to believe. It is further observed that “the word ‘believe’ is very much stronger word than ‘suspect’ and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind that the currency note with which he was dealing was a forged one. and it was not sufficient to show that the accused was careless or he had reason to suspect or that he did not make sufficient enquiry to ascertain the fact.”
13. In the light of the aforesaid propositions, let me examine whether, in the present case, there are circumstances brought on record justifying the conclusion that the Appellant (Accused) had ‘reason to believe’ that the currency notes admittedly in his possession were fake/forged currency notes.
14. The Appellant (Accused) in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he was paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/-by his brother, the absconding accused. It was been brought on record that different sums of money were paid by the Appellant to the witnesses examined in the case, including Mohan Jagannath (P.W. 4), Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5) and Vijay Kudalkar (P.W. No. 6). The amount of Rs. 5,000/-. which was paid by the Appellant to Mohan Jagannath (P.W. No. 4) and which was brought to the Bank by Manisha (P.W. No. 3) contained 13 currency notes which were suspected to be forged. Similarly, out of the amount of Rs. 1742,50, which was brought by Ganesh Kardekar (P.W. No. 5) to the Bank for paying the electricity bill, 6 notes in the said amount consisted of Rs. 100/- denomination, which were suspected to be forged notes. Vijay Kudalkar (P.W. No. 6) also stated that a sum of Rs. 3700/- was paid by the Appellant to his brother Mr. Palkar. who deals in cement business, and that out of the said amount of Rs. 3700/-. 17 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were found to be counterfeit/ forged. In all these incidents, the forged currency notes were found mixed with the genuine currency notes. All these amounts were paid on or about 19.2.1986. From the possession of the Appellant also forged currency notes were found and he was found in possession of genuine currency notes also which were kept separately. The Appellant, who had the amount of Rs. 30,000/- given to him by his brother, the absconding accused, as per his own statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was looking after the construction work in respect of a house desired to be built by his brother. The Appellant cannot be said to be a layman and not used to see the currency notes of Rs. 100/-denomination. All these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court,
clearly and irresistibly lead to an inference that the Appellant (Accused) had reason to believe that the currency notes in his possession were fake and counterfeit currency notes. It was for this reason that the Appellant had been trafficking in these currency notes along with genuine notes.
15. Relying on the case between M. Mammutti v. State of Karnataka,’ Shri Bhosale. learned Counsel for the Appellant, pointed out that it was not shown in the expert’s opinion on the forged notes (Exhibit 22) that the forged currency notes were distinguishable at a bare look from the genuine currency notes and. therefore, it was necessary for the prosecution to have put a question to the Appellant (Accused) by showing these forged currency notes. This, obviously, has not been done by the learned Trial Judge. According to learned counsel, under these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Appellant had no knowledge about the currency notes with him that they were forged currency notes. The argument advanced is appreciable. The problem, however, is that, as indicated earlier, the prosecution would succeed not only when the evidence is placed on record to show that the accused had knowledge about the currency notes being forged or counterfeit notes, but it will also succeed if circumstances are brought on record, irresistibly and clearly leading to an inference that the accused had reason to believe that the currency notes found in his possession were forged or fake. The collateral circumstances, such as, the bulk of the fake currency notes, the mixture of fake currency notes with the genuine currency notes, the palming off such notes quickly and the fact that the accused, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be a layman or an uneducated man, are sufficient to infer that the accused had reason to believe that the currency notes with him were fake or counterfeit. There remains no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has established the case against the Appellant (Accused) that the Appellant (Accused) used as genuine the forged or counterfeit currency notes and that the Appellant was found in possession of the forged or counterfeit currency notes, and that he had reason to believe that those were fake/ counterfeit currency notes.
16. The convictions recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be faulted with. The convictions are required to be upheld and they are upheld.
17. The learned Trial Judge has sentenced the Appellant (Accused) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, each for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences have been made to run concurrently.
18. The offences of counterfeiting currency notes for using them as genuine, or trafficking in them, or possessing them, are all grave offences, and cannot be lightly viewed. Such offences vitiate the economy of the country and are matters of serious concern. They are rarely detected and they are perhaps a tip of an iceberg. The offence under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code prescribe imprisonment for life as the maximum punishment, which itself shows the seriousness with which the Legislature has viewed the offence. The award of 7 years imprisonment, in the present case, cannot be said to be on a higher side. The Appellant
(Accused), however, was convicted by the judgment and order dated 17,11.1986, i.e. about more than 14 years ago. The age of the Appellant, at the time of his conviction by the learned Trial Judge, was about 60 years. Now, the Appellant must be an old man of about 73 years. The passage of the long time during which the Appeal has been pending in this Court and the old age of the Appellant, weigh with this Court for reducing the sentence, though on merits, there is no reason why the punishment awarded should have been reduced. It has been stated across the bar by Shri Ranjit Bhosale, learned counsel for the Appellant. That the Appellant has grown old and also suffers from diabetes and that recently, on account of his having met with an accident, he is unable to walk without support.
19. In view of these circumstances, this Court allows the appeal partly only to the extent of modifying the sentence. The punishment which is awarded by the learned Trial Judge shall be modified. The Appellant is sentenced to simple Imprisonment for three years each for the offence punishable under Section 489-B and Section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code. The period of sentence awarded ‘under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is left unchanged. The sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, however, is converted from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. All these sentences shall run concurrently. Needless to say that the period during which the Appellant (Accused) was in jail, either as under trial prisoner or after conviction, shall be set off against the sentence awarded herein. The Appellant (Accused) shall surrender to his ball forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.
20. All concerned parties and authorities to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment and order dated 29.3.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 1986 duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Certified copy expedited.