Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Possession Of Counterfeit Currency Notes Without Furnishing Any Explanation By The Accused Is Non-bailable Offence Punishable Under Section 489-B IPC.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Ram Niwas Vs. State Of U.P. On 29/06/2009 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 34915 OF 2008
CORAM : Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 


AFR 
Reserved 


Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34915 Of 2008 

Ram Niwas................................ Applicant (in Jail) 
Vs. 

State Of U.P. ........................................ Opposite Party



Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J. 
"What Offence Is Made Out On The Basis Of Possession Of Counterfeit Currency Notes)" Is The Main Point That Falls For Consideration In This Bail Application. 
2.By Means Of This Application Under Section 439 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure (in Short, 'the Cr.P.C.), Prayer For Bail Has Been Made On Behalf Of The Applicant Ram Niwas S/o Balram In Case Crime No. 1241 Of 2008 Under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 420 I.P.C. And 2/3 U.P. Gangsters And Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in Short, 'the Gangsters Act') Of P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly. 
2.On 20.06.2008, An FIR Was Lodged At P.S. Kotwali Bareilly By S.I. Vidyut Goyal, Incharge Zonal SOG, Bareilly. A Case Under Section 489-A, 489-B, 489-C IPC And 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act Was Registered Against Five Persons Namely Amrish Kumar Dwivedi, Ram Niwas (applicant Herein), Kanhai, Smt. Vinoda And Shiv Shanker Agnihotri. The Allegations Made In The FIR, In Brief, Are That On Getting Information That Four Persons Including One Woman Are In Contact With Other Persons To Transact Counterfeit Currency Notes, S.I. Vidyut Goyal Incharge SOG Bareilly With The Help Of Other Persons Apprehended Applicant Ram Niwas And Three Other Accused On 20.06.2008 At About 5.30 P.m. Near Gandhi Udyan Bareilly. On Personal Search Of The Applicant Ram Niwas, 40 Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs.500 (total Rs. 20,000/-) Are Said To Have Been Recovered. From The Accused Amreesh Kumar Dwivedi, 22 Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs.1000 From The Accused Kanhai, 40 Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs.500 And From Smt. Vinoda W/o Mahendra Kumar 40 Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs. 500. Total 142 Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs. 82,000/- Are Said To Have Been Recovered From All The Four Accused, Who Were Arrested And Brought To P.S. Kotwali, Bareilly, Where FIR Was Lodged Against Them As Stated Herein Above. It Was Told By The Arrested Accused That They Have Received Currency Notes From Shiv Shanker Agnihotri S/o Raja Ram Resident Of Village Vilendpur P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit On The Basis Of That Information, FIR Was Lodged Against Shiv Shanker Agnihotri Also. 
3.I Have Heard Arguments Of Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Siddharth Saran, Advocate For The Applicant And AGA Sri Rajiv Tiwari For The State. 
4.The Main Submission Made By Learned Counsel For The Applicant Was That Even If Even If The Entire Version Of The FIR Is Accepted To Be True, The Offence Would Not Travel Beyond Section 489C IPC, Which Is Bailable And Hence, The Applicant As Of Right Is Entitled To Be Released On Bail. The Contention Of The Learned Counsel Was That Possession Of Counterfeit Currency Notes Is Punishable Under Section 489-C I.P.C. Only And In Such Case, The Offence Punishable Under Section 489-B IPC Would Not Be Made Out. 
5.It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Applicant That After Planting Counterfeit Currency Notes, The Applicant Has Been Falsely Implicated In This Case And No Recovery Of Any Currency Note Was Made From Him. 
6.Next Submission Made By Learned Counsel Was That On The Basis Of Long Incarceration In Jail, The Applicant Deserves Bail, Because Due To Delay In Trial, Fundamental Right Of Speedy Trial Envisaged Under Article 21 Of The Constitution Is Being Infringed. 
7.It Was Also Submitted That There Is No Criminal Antecedent Of The Applicant Except Present Case. 
8.It Was Further Submitted By Learned Counsel For The Applicant That Copy Of The Report Of Govt. Press Has Not Been Filed By The Prosecution With The Counter Affidavit And Hence, It Can Not Be Said That The Seized Currency Notes Were Counterfeit. 
9.The Bail Application Was Opposed By Learned AGA Contending That The Offence Punishable Under Sections 489-B IPC Is Also Made Out In Present Case In Addition To The Offence Under Section 489-C IPC And Hence, In This Heinous Anti-national Crime, The Applicant Should Not Be Granted Bail. The Contention Of The Learned AGA Was That The Applicant Has Not Furnished Any Explanation About Keeping Counterfeit Currency Notes With Him And Since In The Affidavits Filed In Support Of Bail Applications, It Is Not Stated That The Currency Notes Were Lying Somewhere, Which Were Picked Up By The Applicant, Hence It Would Be Presumed That The Applicant Had Received Seized Currency Notes From Any Other Person Knowing Or Having Reason To Believe The Same To Be Counterfeit And Hence The Offence Punishable Under Section 489-B IPC Is Clearly Made Out Against The Applicant. It Was Also Submitted By Learned AGA In This Context That Although In Cases Of Possession Of Counterfeit Currency Notes, Presumption Envisaged Section 114(a) Of Indian Evidence Act In Terms Is Not Applicable, But If The Person Who Is Found In Possession Of Counterfeit Currency Notes Has Not Furnished Any Explanation As To How He Come Into Possession Of Such Currency Notes, Then On The Basis Of The Anology Of This Section, It Shall Be Presumed In Such Cases That He Has Received Such Currency Notes From Other Person Knowing Or Having Reason To Believe The Same To Be Counterfeit And In Such Case The Offence Punishable Under Section 489-B IPC Would Be Made Out Against Such Person. 
10.It Was Further Submitted By Learned AGA That If Any Person Receives From Any Other Person Counterfeit Currency Notes Or Bank Note Knowing Or Having Reason To Believe The Same To Be Forged Or Counterfeit, Then He Shall Be Punished Under Section 489-B IPC And If The Said Bank Notes Or Currency Notes Are Intended To Be Used As Genuine, Then In Such Case The Offence Punishable Under Section 489C IPC Also Be Made Out. 
11.It Was Also Submitted By Learned AGA That Currency Notes, Which Were Recovered From The Applicant Ram Niwas And Other Co-accused Persons Were Found Counterfeit On Examination By The Govt. Press, As Is Evident From Para 11 Of The Counter Affidavit. It Was Also Submitted In This Context That It Is Not The Case Of Applicant That Currency Notes, Which Were Recovered From Him Were Genuine 
12.There Is Sufficient Prima Facie Evidence To Show That The Applicant Ram Niwas Was Found In Possession Of Forty Counterfeit Currency Notes Of Rs.500. In The Affidavit Accompanying The Bail Application, No Explanation For Keeping Such Huge Quantity Of Counterfeit Currency Notes Has Been Furnished. It Is Not The Case Of Applicant That The Currency Notes, Which Are Shown To Have Been Recovered From Him, Were Lying At Any Place, Which Were Picked Up By Him. Therefore, Accepting Aforesaid Submissions Made By Learned AGA At This Stage, But Without Expressing Any Final Opinion About These Submissions And Merit Of The Case, In This Heinous Anti-national Crime, The Applicant Does Not Deserve Bail And Granting Bail In Such Crime Would Be A Fraud On The Nation, As Ultimately The Economy Of Entire Nation Is Adversely Affected By Such Crime. 
13.In My Considered Opinion, On The Basis Of The Long Incarceration In Jail Also, The Applicant Can Not Be Admitted To Bail In This Heinous Crime. In This Context, Reference May Be Made To The Case Of Pramod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union Of India And Others 2008 (63) ACC 115, In Which The Hon'ble Apex Court Has Held That Mere Long Period Of Incarceration In Jail Would Not Be Per-se Illegal. If The Accused Has Committed Offence, He Has To Remain Behind Bars. Such Detention In Jail Even As An Under Trial Prisoner Would Not Be Violative Of Article 21 Of The Constitution. 
14.Consequently, The Bail Application Of The Applicant Ram Niwas Is Hereby Rejected. 
15.The Concerned Trial Court Is Directed To Conclude The Trial Of The Applicant And Other Co-accused Within A Period Of Six Months Applying The Provisions Of Section 309 Cr.P.C. And Avoiding Unnecessary Adjournments. If The Co-accused, Who Have Been Bailed Out, Remain Absent, Or Their Counsel Do Not Co-operate, Then Their Trial May Be Separated And By Making Sincere Efforts The Trial Of The Applicant Will Be Concluded Within Aforesaid Period. 
16.The Office Is Directed To Send A Copy Of This Order Within A Week To The Trial Court Concerned For Necessary Action. 

Go to Navigation