STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred with 94 days delay. We have perused the accompanying affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay. We are satisfied that delay has been property explained. Therefore, 94 days delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Application seeking condonation of delay (CRMA No. 1414 of 2015) is allowed. Present appeal is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 13.02.2015, passed by 1st Additional Session Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 267 of 2007, whereby respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 420 I.P.C. As per the prosecution story, on 09.11.2005, Incharge Kotwali, Shri J.P. Juyal has received secret information that three people having counterfeit notes were standing near the Bus Stand, Haridwar; having received such secret information, Incharge, Kotwali, Haridwar alongwith police party came on the spot; from the possession of Lal Singh, one currency note of Rs.500/- and ten currency notes of Rs.100/- were recovered; from the possession of Rajendra, one currency note of Rs.500/- and eleven currency notes of Rs.100/- were recovered while from the possession of Mahmood @ Munda, one currency note of Rs.500/- and eleven currency notes of Rs.100/- were recovered; during the pendency of the trial, accused Lal Singh, Mahmood @ Munda and Om Prakash has expired, therefore, trial against them stood abated, however trial proceeded against the accused respondent Rajendra.

(2.) It is surprising that all the accused, including, respondent, herein, was apprehended in a crowded areas near the Bus Stand, Haridwar and there is absolutely no public witness of the alleged search and recovery of the counterfeit currency notes. Learned Trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment that mere recovery of the counterfeit currency notes is not sufficient to invoke Section 489-B I.P.C. unless prosecution is able to prove that accused was having complete knowledge that he was having counterfeit and fictitious notes in his possession for the purpose of using the same.

(3.) Learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umashanker Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 9 SCC 642, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 8 has held as under :-