STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAIB JUSAB SAMA MUSALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Sec. 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dtd. 28/01/1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Sessions Case No.96/96 acquitting the respondent - original accused from the offence punishable under Sec. 489(a) , 489(b) and 489(c) of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:- On 22/3/1995 owner of Prabhat Saw Mill named Laxmidas Patel visited the Bank for depositing Rs.25,000.00 in Bank of Baroda Bank, Palanpur. As such he had placed the notes of denomination of Rs.100.00 and Rs.50.00 before the cashier and when the cashier was counting, some doubt was created regarding 20 notes of Rs.100.00 i.e. total Rs.2000.00. As such, the Manager was informed accordingly and upon checking the notes, it was found to be counterfeit and as a result, the notes were seized and complaint was filed by the Senior Manager of Bank of Baroda, Palanpur in Palanpur Town Police Station. Initially investigation was carried out by Head Constable Rajabhai Virabhai. The notes were sent to Government Press, Devas for checking. Thereafter, the investigating officer investigated regarding involvement of the accused and as the accused was not found, "A" Sumary was filed by the then investigating officer, Palanpur Police Station. Thereafter, on 9/5/1996 upon Fax massage received through D.S.P. Office, as an accused of counterfeit notes was arrested in Bhuj Police Station, on the basis of the Transfer Warrant, present respondent accused was arrested, investigation was carried out, and statements were recorded and as Certificate from the Government Press, Devas was received stating the 20 notes being counterfeit notes, chargesheet was filed against the present respondent accused. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.4 against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 7 documentary evidences before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 4 of the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him.