ATABUL SEKH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2009 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Baripada in Sessions Trial No. 23/26 of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court held the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") guilty of the charge under Sections 489- B, 489-C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months on each count.

(2.) Prosecution placed a case before the trial court to the effect that on 26.06.2007 at about 7 A.M. while the informant, namely, Baishnab Chandra Mohanty (P.W.2), the then Manager of Reliance Petrol Pump, Udala, was in the Counter of said Petrol Pump, the accused persons along with another came and one of them handed over one five hundred rupee currency note asking for lower denomination notes. However, the P.W.2 suspected the same to be forged currency note and when he appraised them of his opinion, all of them tried to escape, but the P.W.2 and others chased and apprehended them. The matter was thereafter reported to the police vide Ext.1. The police took up investigation of the case, seized the suspected G.C. notes and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections. Thereafter, the case of the accused persons was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial while the case against the absconded accused - Asen Sekh was split up. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. In the trial, as such, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and also relied upon documents vide Exts.1 to 7 in order to establish the charge. The accused persons took the plea of denial and false implication in their defence and examined two witnesses. The trial court on conclusion of the trial discarding the defence plea that as the accused persons denied to construct the house of the informant, a false report was lodged against them, rendered the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as assailed here in this appeal.

(3.) The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused persons submits that there being nothing on record indicating the fact that the accused persons handed over 500 rupee G.C. note to the P.W.2 knowing or having reason to believe the note to be forged or counterfeit and when there is nothing on record to hold that they possessed such G.C. note knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged, particularly when they are construction worker, their conviction discarding the defence plea supported by the evidence, is against the weight of evidence and is, therefore, sustainable either in law or in fact.