MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence dated 5-6-980 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions. Trial No. 293 of 1979.

(2.) The accused-appellant went to the medical store of Jagdish Kumar Agarwal. P.W.3 to purchase medicines. After purchasing one tube he made over one fifty rupees currency note (Ext. 1) to the shopkeeper. The said Jagdish Kumar suspected as regards the genuineness of the said note and he went to the neighbouring shop M/s. Tula Ram Raja Ram and showed it to one Ganeshji of that shop who also confirmed that it was a counterfeit note. Crowd assembled there and thereafter a constable arrived. The accused was found standing there and he was arrested. A case under Sections 420/467, I.P.C.was started and during investigation the case having been established, according to the prosecution, charge-sheet was submitted. Charge under Section 489-B and 489-C, I.P.C.was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and trial started. During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses, out of which P.W.1 is the expert. He corroborated his report to the effect that it was a counterfeit note. The Upper half is a part of genuine currency note of Rs. 50.00 denomination while lower half comprises of a crudely drawn replica of the complementary part of the said note. P.W.2 Virendra Kumar Agarwal is the brother of the informant, who has corroborated the prosecution story stating that his brother Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to him and asked if the currency note which was with him was genuine. He was not sure and then he and Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Tula Ram Raja Ram. In cross-examination he has stated that after both the brothers inspected the note Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Raja Ram and when he also went there and at that time he found the accused standing in his shop. P.W.3 Jagdish Kumar has corroborated the story depicted in the first information report. P.W.4 Ganeshi Lal also corroborated the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they brought the note to him to verify whether it was genuine or not. P.W.5 is the Constable, who went to the place of the occurrence after seeing the crowd. He seized the currency note and took the accused to the police station. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C.the accused admitted the possession of the note but expressed innocence. After considering the evidence on record the learned Judge convicted the accused under Sections 489-B and 489-C and sentenced him to suffer R.I.for one year and a fine of Rs. 200.00 for the offence under Section 489-B and one year for the offence under Section 489-C, I.P.C.

(3.) Sri Kamal Krishna appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the accused appellant had knowledge that the said currency note was forged. He has stated that the conduct of the accused shows that he was innocent and had no knowledge that the said note was forged. In the first information report it was stated that he was arrested from the spot. P.W.5 constable has also stated that he took the accused to the police station after preparing recovery memo of the counter-feit note. P.W.3 Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has stated when he was in doubt about the genuineness of the currency note and he went to the contiguous shop of his brother P.W.2, who was a medical practitioner to varify whether the said currency note was genuine. He has also stated that when his brother expressed doubt he went to the shop of M/s. Tula Ram Raja Ram to get confirmation. In cross-examination he has stated that during the period the accused was standing in the shop. Learned counsel has submitted that if the accused had any knowledge that the said note was not genuine he would have tried to flee away from the spot. This very conduct of the accused shows that he was innocent.