STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHESHBHAI JIVANBHAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Appeals, filed by the appellant - State, have been directed against the judgment and order dated 28/05/2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2008 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489(C) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for brevity) and awarded two years' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for a period of 06 months whereas, acquitted them of the offence punishable under Sections 489(A) and 489(B) of the IPC. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1212 of 2010 has been preferred against acquittal whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 1227 of 2010 has been preferred for enhancement of sentence.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 09/04/2008 at about 21:30 hours, near security office in Bombay Market parking, the respondent No. 1 herein - original accused No. 1 was found with 90 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 1,000/ - valued at Rs. 90,000/ -, the respondent No. 2 - original accused No. 2 was found with 100 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ - valued at Rs. 50,000/ - and the respondent No. 3 - original accused No. 3, who was alleged to have been providing these notes to the accused Nos. 1 and 2, was found with 80 fake currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ - valued at Rs. 40,000/ - along with colour printer valued at Rs. 31,000/ - for preparing such currency notes. Thus, all the accused with the help of each other, committed the alleged offence punishable under Sections 489(A), (B) and (C) r/w. Section 114 of the IPC and for which, complaint came to be lodged against them.

(3.) WHEREAS , Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the accused No. 3, took us through the evidence of PW -2 - Natvarsinh Nathabhai, recorded at exh. 15, more particularly, the cross -examination, where it is pointed out that there is no evidence on record against the accused No. 3, save and except against accused Nos. 1 and 2. He further took us to the complaint, exh. 16 where, the name of the accused No. 3 is not there. He further took us to the evidence of PW -8 - Nandkishor Shravan Chaudhary, recorded at exh. 44, wherein, in para 11 of the same, it is mentioned that the Article No. 7, which were the alleged currency notes sought to be found from the accused No. 3 by the prosecution, were recovered from the brother -in -law of the accused. He took us to the cross -examination of this witness and pointed out that from the evidence, there appears no incriminating evidence against the accused No. 3. Therefore, he contended that in these circumstances, there is no scope for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 489(A) and (B) and for enhancement of sentence.