SUNDER DEV KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sunder Dev Kushwaha impugns a judgment dated 06.03.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 80/09 arising out of FIR No.731/07 under Sections 489B/489C/34 IPC PS Lajpat Nagar. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 489B and RI for four years under Section 489C. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant and co -accused persons Jagram and Shishram were that on 20.07.2007 when Sub -Inspector Pramod Gupta along with other police officials was on patrolling duty, he reached at Amar Colony Market where Vikrant, a Juice Vendor called him. On seeing the police officials, two persons standing there started slipping and were apprehended. Statement of the Juice Vendor Vikrant was recorded. He alleged that two persons had come at his shop at C -13, Amar Colony Market and had asked for two glasses of juice. They had handed over a fake currency note of Rs. 500. He got suspicion and called the police. Both the accused persons, one of which was the appellant Sunder Dev Kushwaha were examined. Fake currency notes amounting to Rs. 64,500/ - were recovered from the appellant. Rs. 60,000/ - fake currency notes were recovered from co -accused Shishram. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Another co -accused Jagram was apprehended at the instance of the appellant and his associate and he recovered forty fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500 from his house. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant and two other accused persons. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to bring home the charges. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The accused persons examined three defence witnesses, Ram Kishan, Ram Sobhawan and Saroj Prasad. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held all the accused persons guilty for the offences mentioned previously. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant is not a previous convict and has suffered substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection.