Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Noor Islam s/o Sadik Ali, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.83/2012 for offences under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5000/- for Section 489(B) and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- for Section 489(C). The case arose from an incident on 29.9.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. in Cannaught Market, Cidco, Aurangabad, where the appellant purchased a Vodafone recharge of Rs.100/- from P.W.2 Dinesh Mahale and offered a Rs.1000/- currency note. Dinesh suspected the note was counterfeit and, with the help of P.W.3 Raju Vetal, detained the appellant and informed the police. Police arrived and seized the note and other currency notes from the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant, and he appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3, and the report of the Currency Note Press, which confirmed the note was counterfeit. The court held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant did not offer any explanation for possession of the counterfeit notes, and the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was not discharged. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Counterfeit Currency - Possession and Use - Sections 489(B) and 489(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant was convicted for using a counterfeit Rs.1000 note to purchase a recharge and for possessing counterfeit currency. The court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the note was counterfeit and that the appellant used it and possessed it. The appellant's failure to explain possession under Section 106 of the Evidence Act supported the conviction. (Paras 1-10)
B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 Evidence Act, 1872 - When facts are within the special knowledge of the accused, the burden lies on him to explain them. The appellant did not offer any explanation for possession of counterfeit notes, leading to an adverse inference. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Possession of counterfeit currency
- Use of counterfeit currency
- Presumption of knowledge
- Burden of proof on accused
- Section 489(B) IPC
- Section 489(C) IPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 28
Criminal Appeal No.510 of 2015
Shri A.K. Bhosale for appellant, Shri R.V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent/ State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for offences under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for using a counterfeit Rs.1000 note and possessing counterfeit currency.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 489(B) and seven years under Section 489(C) IPC.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the currency note was counterfeit and that the appellant used it and possessed it.
Whether the appellant discharged the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain his possession of counterfeit notes.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the note was counterfeit and that he had no knowledge of its counterfeit nature.
Respondent/State argued that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, along with the report from Currency Note Press, established the note was counterfeit, and the appellant did not offer any explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used a counterfeit currency note and possessed counterfeit currency. The appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain his possession, leading to an adverse inference. The conviction under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) IPC is sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant - original accused (hereafter referred to as 'accused') was tried along with one Mohammad Yunus for offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief) in Sessions Case No.83/2012 before Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad and, while the other accused came to be acquitted as there was no evidence against the said accused, the appellant was convicted for these Sections.
He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 489(B) of IPC. For offence under Section 489(C), he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Procedural History
The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No.83/2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad, convicted and sentenced. He appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, which reserved judgment on 30th June 2016 and delivered on 15th July 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 489(B), 489(C), 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 106
