SHAKIL AHMED SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions case No. 51 of 2002 dated 22nd August, 2002. By the said order, the Ad hoc addl. District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant original accused No. 1 under section 489c of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to suffer another 11/2 years.

(2.) THE appellant along with two others charged under section 489c of the indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 6th April, 2000, the appellant accused was found to be in possession of forged or counterfeit currency of Rs. 500/- denomination which were 300 in number and accordingly, a charge was framed against the appellant and two others. The trial Court convicted the accused under the said charge and the appellant has therefore, preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had not proved that the said currency notes and certificate which is required to be obtained from the mint was not obtained or produced in the trial Court. He submitted that what was produced at Exhibit-22 was in fact a letter from the officer of the mint stating therein that the opinion regarding the currency notes would be submitted after two months. He submitted that therefore since the very basis of the charge was not proved, the appellant was liable to be acquitted. He brought to my notice that it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the said certificate though it was not necessary to examine an Officer from the mint in view of the provisions of section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the production of the said certificate, the trial Court was bound to exhibit the same. He further submitted that apart from the non-production of the certificate from the mint, the prosecution had not produced any independent witness to prove the possession of the alleged counterfeit currency. He submitted that out of the five witnesses which were examined by the prosecution, PW No. 1 was the police constable, PW No. 2 was also a police constable. PW No. 3 is the investigating Officer. PW No. 4 is the panch witness who turned hostile and PW no. 5 is the Investigating Officer Balasaheb Koli who took over the investigation from PW No. 3 Vilas Patil. He submitted that no independent witnesses were examined and thus, seizure of the alleged fake currency notes was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the trial Court has convicted the accused on conjectures and surmises and not on the basis of substantive evidence.

(3.) THE learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the said application made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. He submitted that as far as Exhibit-22 is concerned, it was obviously a mistake made by the trial Court in exhibiting the wrong document. He submitted that the certificate was infact available in the police papers and was in a sealed packet. I therefore directed the sheristedar to open the sealed packet in the Court and it transpired that the certificate issued by the mint was infact in the sealed envelope. The said certificate stated the reasons why the said notes were counterfeit notes. He submitted that therefore there appeared to be a bona fide mistake in exhibiting the letter which was sent by the mint and instead of exhibiting the certificate, the letter which was on record as Exhibit-22 appeared to have been wrongly exhibited. He submitted that though the said document was not part of the evidence on record, it was part of the record and proceedings and therefore, this Court should take cognizance of the said letter and read the letter as part of the evidence. This submission was strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant accused. He submitted that grave prejudice would be caused to the accused if the said certificate is now used in evidence. He submitted that if the correct letter had been exhibited, the learned counsel for the accused could have cross-examined the Investigating Officer regarding the genuineness of the certificate. He submitted that therefore, the court was now precluded from taking into consideration the said letter.