Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/2446/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2446 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
SATYAPRAKASH
ALIAS NIPUKUMAR KANAIYAPRASAD BAMRNWAL - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRATIK BAROT for MS SUDHA C SHUKLA
for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HH PARIKH, APP for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 13/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
appellant original accused No.3 has filed this Appeal under
Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 12.6.2008 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions
Case No.78 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has held the appellant accused guilty for the offence under
Section 489(B)of I.P. Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to further
undergo RI for 6 months and also held the appellant accused
guilty for the offence under Section 489(c) and sentenced him to
undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d to further
undergo RI for 3 months. The learned Judged has also ordered that
all the sentence awarded to the accused shall run concurrently.
The
brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on the date of
incident the complainant ASI, along with other police personnel
were on Bank Watch Petrolling, at that time at Vapi GIDC near State
bank of India Cross road three persons were coming in suspicious
condition and were dealing in money and, therefore, they were
stopped by the complainant and others and asked as to why they are
standing near the Bank. They did not give proper and satisfactory
reply. As the appellant and others were having currency notes of
denomination of thousand rupees and different currency notes they
were taken to SOG office. Thereafter two panchas were called and in
their presence and in presence of PSI and others fake and duplicate
notes were recovered from the accused. It is alleged by the
prosecution that the said fake and bogus currency notes were brought
from neighbouring countries. The complaint was registered against
the accused and other persons with Vapi GIDC Police Station which
came to be registered as CR No. I -74 of 2007.
Necessary
investigation was carried out by the Police and after completion of
investigation the charge-sheet against the accused came to be
submitted before the Court of learned Magistrate. As the offence
under Sections 489(A)(B)(c) read with Section 120-B I.P. Code are
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the said case to the Court of Sessions at Valsad. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the
accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to
be tried.
To
prove the case against the accused the prosecution has examined 6
witnesses and also relied upon documentary evidence and at the end
of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section
313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the
prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
held the appellant accused guilty of the offences charged
against him and awarded sentence as narrated herein above.
Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order
of conviction and sentence the appellant accused has preferred
this Appeal.
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for Ms. Sudha Shukla, appearing on
behalf of the appellant and learned APP Mr. H.H. Parikh on behalf of
the respondent State. I have gone through the Judgment and order
passed by the trial Court. I have also considered the documents
produced on the record of the case.
Learned
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant accused, has
contended that he is not arguing the matter on merit. However, he
has contended that the accused is poor and layman and he cannot
understand the local language. This is his first offence and he is
falsely involved in the case. He has contended that since last 3
years and four months the accused is in Jail and looking to the
facts of the case some mercy is required to be shown and the
sentence which the accused has already undergone may be treated as
sentence and he may be set at liberty forthwith.
Learned
APP has supported the Judgment and roder passed by the Sessions
Court and contended that looking to the seriousness of offence no
interference is required to be called for by this Court.
I
have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge and also gone through the documents
produced before me. I have also considered the submissions made by
the learned Advocates for the parties.
Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact
that since last about 3-1/2 years the appellant accused is in
jail, if the sentence already undergone by the appellant accused
be treated as sentence the same would meet with the ends of justice.
Accordingly,
this Appeal is partly allowed. The Judgment and order dated
12.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No.78 of 2007 is confirmed.
However, the sentence awarded to the appellant accused by the
Sessions Court is modified to the extent that the sentence which the
appellant accused has already undergone may be treated as
sentence and the appellant accused be set at liberty forthwith
if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Rest of the
judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is hereby confirmed.
(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)
sas
Top