PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2009, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under section 489-B r/w. section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for six months. They are also convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for two months. Besides, appellant No. 1-Prabhakar is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 489-C of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer R.I. of six months. So also, appellant No. 2-Venkatesh is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 489-A and 489-D of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months on each count.

(2.) It is alleged that both the appellants allegedly attempted to use counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination which were falsely represented as genuine currency notes and were got printed by appellant No. 2.

(3.) The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on 7th June, 2009, appellant No. 1-Prabhakar visited a beer bar styled as "Alankar Beer Bar, Degloor" around its business closing hours. He ordered couple of beer bottles. He gave currency note of Rs. 500/-denomination to the Manager of the Beer Bar. The Manager suspected that the currency note was counterfeit and hence called upon appellant No. 1-Prabhakar to tender another currency note. Another currency note of Rs. 500/- denomination was produced and given by appellant No. 1-Prabhakar The Manager noticed that both the currency notes bore identical serial numbers. His belief that the currency notes were counterfeit, was thus confirmed. He, therefore, telephonically informed the Police that the customer i.e. appellant No. 1-Prabhakar attempted to deceive him by giving the counterfeit currency note of Rs. 500/- denomination The Police arrived at the spot within a short while. They took away appellant No. 1-Prabhakar alongwith the two counterfeit currency notes which were in his possession. They also took away motorbike used by appellant No. 1-Prabhakar which was parked outside the beer bar. The Police recovered 30 counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination, counterfeit currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination, 46 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and 1 counterfeit currency note of Rs. 50/-denomination from the tool box of the dickey of the motorbike of appellant No. 1-Prabhakar in pursuance of his confessional statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The investigation further revealed that counterfeit currency notes were prepared by appellant No. 2-Venkatesh The arrest of appellant No. 2-Venkatesh gave rise to recovery of computer, printer, papercutter machine, compact discs containing Computer programme used for preparation of the counterfeit notes and the stock of paper used while printing such fake currency notes. Appellant No. 2-Venkatesh is a photographer by profession. The Police gathered evidence to the effect that both the appellants were dealing in misuse of such counterfeit currency notes by putting them in use for personal benefits like purchasing of cigarettes etc. The manner in which the counterfeit notes were prepared and printed by using the computer, printer and the C.D. programme was made explicit on demonstration of the process by-appellant No. 2-Venkatesh whilst he was in the Police custody. On basis of the material gathered during course of investigation, both the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D and section 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge was framed against them vide Exhibit-9. Both of them pleaded 'not guilty' in response to the charge. Their defence was of total denial. They asserted that they have been framed in a false case. No particular defence was raised by either of them.