JAFAR Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, Mohd.Jafar (A-1) and Mohd.Jamal (A-2) impugn their conviction under Sections 489 B/489C/34 IPC by a judgment dated 04.06.2012 of Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 41/10/09 arising out of FIR No. 90/2009 PS Geeta Colony. By an order dated 07.06.2012, they were awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 489B/34 IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 489C/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet, was that on 28.04.2009 at about 05.30 P.M., a secret information was received that two persons were to deliver two fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/- each in exchange of a genuine currency note of Rs. 1,000/-. A raiding team was organised. HC Rajender (PW-6) was made a decoy customer and was given one currency note of Rs. 1,000/- bearing No. 4CD 591459. When he struck deal at around 06.10 P.M., both the appellants were apprehended. On search, 98 and 80 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/- each were recovered from the possession of A-1 and A-2 respectively. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial. Supplementary charge-sheet against Qamar Abbas was submitted. However, vide order dated 13.05.2010, he was discharged of the offence. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime; pleaded false implication and examined five witnesses in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) During the course of hearing, Counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and accept it voluntarily. They, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have remained in custody for substantial period and are not the previous convict. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.