ALKESH DHANESHBHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant original accused has filed this Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2007, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 489(B) of I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- i/d to further undergo SI for three months and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also held the appellant accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) I.P. Code and sentenced him to suffer RI for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to further undergo SI for one month. The learned Judge ordered that both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 5.12.2006 at 16.40 hours the when the complainant along with other police staff were on petrolling on Relief Road at that time near Murtimand Complex they heard shouts at Jay Ambe Marketing in the said complex. They rushed to the place and inquired about the incident. One Kishorbhai, working in the said shop, shown one person who came to purchase mobile phone and in lieu of the same he paid the price in currency notes. It was alleged that the said currency notes were fake currency notes. Thereupon the police made search from that person and found four notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- and 64 notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-. The said currency notes were fake currency notes. The police called two panchas and drawn the panchnama and seized the muddamal currency notes. The complaint was filed. On interrogation the appellant accused informed the police that said fake currency notes were given by one Rajubhai Prajapati.

(3.) Necessary investigation was carried out by the Police. Offence was registered against the accused. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet against the accused came to be submitted before the Court. As the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.