RAJENDRA KHUSHALBHAI DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 19/05/2000, passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 258 of 2006, whereby, while acquitting the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 489 (b) and (c) r/w. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'), the appellant herein - original accused No. 1 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further RI for three months. He was given set off for the period he had already undergone.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant - D. S. Vaghela, PSI, Mr. Goswami, PSI and other persons when were on patrolling on 10/09/1998 at about 17:10 hours and passing near Gayatri Dairy in Khokhara, Mahemdabad area, an informant gave information that one person namely Rajendra Khushaldas of Shramjivinagar, Khokhara, Mahemdabad area, opposite Bihari Mill was possessing counterfeit dollars and trying to sell in the market. Accordingly, they kept watch along with two panchas and when the person of the given description was passing through, the complainant intercepted. His name was tallied and on search in presence of panchs, he was found possessing 18 notes of American dollars amounting to $1800. Some of the notes were found to have been bearing the same numbers. Hence, an expert from Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., the authorized agent, was called for to verify the same and accordingly, one Sanjiv Gupta came and on verification, certified them to be counterfeit. On enquiry with the appellant - accused No. 1, it was found that original accused No. 2 had given the said counterfeit notes for selling. During investigation, the original accused No. 3 was also found to have been involved in the crime. Thus, the accused committed the offence alleged against them for which, a complainant came to be lodged.

(3.) Heard Mr. Ramnandan Singh, the learned advocate for the appellant - original accused No. 1 and Mr. K. L. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.