SUMEET MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2018 passed by VII ASJ, Indore in S.T.No.359/2016 whereby the charges under section 489-B of IPC has been framed against the applicant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26.3.2014 an information was received by P.S. Crime Branch, Indore that Motilal Vishwakarma and Ramkesh Vishwakarma, R/o 21/14, Nanda Nagar, Indore are having counterfeit currency of Rs.1,000/- which are at home and they are about to use the counterfeit notes. Upon receipt of this information, police force reached at the residence of aforesaid persons and after waiting, the said persons moved out from their home. After following the said persons for a while, they went in shop named "Sai Kirana" where both the persons had purchased some goods and one person had given a currency of Rs.1,000/- to the shop-keeper in order to pay the bill and thereafter both were arrested by the police. The currency note given by Motital to the shopkeeper was found to be different from normal currency note as the said note was made out of thick paper as compared to the normal note. On search, one more currency note bearing No. 7-GR 434033 was found from the pocket of Ramkesh which was also found to be counterfeited note. The seizure memo was duly prepared and accused were arrested. An offence under section 489-B of the IPC was registered against them. During the investigation, Motilal and Ramkesh disclosed that present applicant Sumeet Maheshwari provided him two counterfeit note of Rs.1000/- and 24 notes of Rs.500/-. On the basis of their disclosure statement recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the present applicant has been implicated in the present crime and after completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for applicant submits that there is no prima facie evidence available against the applicant, to connect him with the present crime. It is further submitted that co-accused Motilal named the applicant in his memorandum recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that applicant supplied him 26 counterfeit currency, out of which there were 2 notes of Rs.1000/- and 24 notes were of Rs. Rs.500/-. He has further submitted that aforesaid statement does not bear any evidentiary value, therefore this is not sufficient to implicate the applicant in the present crime. During the investigation police seized some SMS from the mobile phone of Motilal. The only seizure from the applicant relates to some SMS with the accused Motilal regarding some payment but there remains nothing else on record to show how these SMS are regarding the payment of counterfeit currency. Therefore it cannot be said that the notes which have been seized from Motilal and Ramkesh remains the same as provided by the applicant. Apart from this, there is no other evidence on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. In these circumstances, charge be set aside.