STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 28.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions trial No. 8 -NL/7 of 2002 acquitting the accused/respondent for offences under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short called IPC) in reference to FIR No. 66/97 dated 28.4.1997. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.4.1997 accused/respondent while present in the Barber shop near Dharamshala, Nalagarh was apprehended in reference to a secret information that the accused/respondent was involved in cheating and trade of multiplying the currency notes to five times. On search of the accused/respondent, the police recovered 48 currency notes bearing different numbers including four notes bearing the same serial numbers 7B4 -556188, three currency notes of Rs. 10/ -, one note of Rs. 5/ -, three notes worth Rs. 2/ -, one note of Rs. 1/ -, coins of Rs. 15/ -, one key with maruti engraving. Many other articles were also allegedly recovered from the accused during the course of the investigation. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, whereas in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/respondent denied the prosecution case.

(3.) MANISH Aggarwal (PW2) stated that at the relevant time he was running a restaurant when accused came to his restaurant 3 -4 times and stayed there. PW2 has further stated that the accused was saying that he was dealing in the business of electrical goods of Nahan area and he could also deliver him dealership of electrical articles and for that purpose he has to invest a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Accordingly, PW2 has paid a sum ofRs.16,000/ - to the accused in the denomination of Rs. 100/ - each. PW2 has further stated that after receiving the money accused/respondent neither visited his restaurant nor dealership was given to him. PW2 has further stated that accused/respondent came to his restaurant with a maruti car. PW2 also stated that when the police came for interrogation he produced one suit case which was left by the accused/respondent in his hotel. PW2 has further reiterated in cross -examination that accused had received Rs. 16000/ - from him for providing dealership to him. Testimony of PW2 does not co -relate or strengthen the prosecution case so far as the involvement of the accused/respondent for the offence under Section 489A is concerned.