SHAMIM ALIAS BHURA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 22.12.2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 489B IPC and was sentenced for a period of 4 years RI with fine of Rs.15,000/-.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that ASI Devender received secret information that the appellant used to sell fake Indian currency notes for half price near Gagan Cinema and such information was noted down by him vide DD No.6. After directions from the ACP, a raiding party consisting of ASI Devender, Head Constable Pramod, Head Constable Dilawar, Constable Ravinder, Constable Kishan Kumar, Constable Anju and Constable Parvez Alam was formed and the party reached near SDM Office, Sunder Nagri along with the secret informer on 06.04.2007 at about 3.30 P.M. At about 4.15 P.M., the appellant/accused came towards Gagan Cinema and on the direction of the secret informer, Constable Ravinder, who was deputed as a decoy customer, went towards him. Constable Ravinder purchased one note of Rs.1,000/- and two notes of Rs.5,00/- from the accused and signaled the raiding party by waiving his hands. The abovementioned notes were found to be fake and on search of the accused, 29 fake Indian currency notes of Rs.1,000/- and 38 fake Indian currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered. After completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted under Section 489B IPC. The currency notes were examined by A.M. Behere, Asstt. Works Manager (PW-8) who gave his reports that the notes were not genuine. The prosecution examined eight Police officials as witnesses to substantiate its case and after examining the witnesses and material on record, the appellant was found guilty under Section 489B IPC. Hence the present petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged after considerable delay which casts a shadow on the prosecution case. The impugned judgment has further been challenged on the ground that no public witnesses were joined by the Police in spite of the fact that the spot from where the appellant was apprehended is a crowded place and there were a lot of people around at the relevant time. It has been further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no copy of seizure memo was given to the appellant on the spot or even afterwards. It has been further argued that the prosecution has not been able to show that from where the Rs.1,000/- currency note was taken by the Police which was used by them in the case for trapping the appellant. Finally, it is submitted that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is very harsh considering the fact that the appellant has 3 dependent daughters and further the appellant was not given the benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.