ABDUL KUDDUS MUSTAQ SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal bearing No.799 of 2015 is filed by appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus Shaikh whereas Criminal Appeal No.983 of 2017 is filed by appellant/accused no.3 Asadul Shaikh. By these appeals, they are challenging the judgment and order dated 19th March 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.434 of 2011, thereby convicting them and accused no.1 Mohammad Bilal Shaikh of offences punishable under Section 489B read with 120B, Section 489C read with 120B, Section 420 read with 120B and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 489B read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 489C read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants/accused so also the co-accused are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 420B read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants/accused and the co-accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants/accused as well as the co-accused Mohammad Bilal Shaikh and their resultant conviction can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard Shri Khamkar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused nos.2 and 3 at sufficient length of time. By taking me through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned counsel argued that there is absolutely no evidence to show that appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus had circulated fake currency notes. PW5 Umesh Dhangar, who was working as employee with PW1 Nilesh Sakure has not identified appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus. No Test Identification Parade was held. Evidence of PW1 Nilesh Sakure regarding identity of appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus is highly doubtful. He has deposed that the first customer who came to his shop was appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus, whereas other evidence on record shows that it was accused no.1 Mohammad Bilal Shaikh. The learned counsel further argued that PW4 Sanjay Govindwani has not spoken about involvement of appellant/accused no.2 Abdul Kuddus in the crime in question. It is further argued that even if case of the prosecution is accepted, then also allegation against appellant/accused no.3 Asadul Shaikh is in respect of possession of one counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/- denomination. There is no other evidence against appellant/accused no.3 Asadul Shaikh. With this, it is argued that the appellants/accused are entitled for acquittal for want of sufficient evidence.