Bela Nand vs The State

P.D. Sharma, J.—The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi convicted Bela Nand under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four years and two years'' rigorous imprisonment respectively. In addition he directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment'' for a further period of three months under the first count. Both the sentences were to run concurrently except the sentence of fine. The convict appeals through jail.

The prosecution case is that the accused-appellant on 20th July, 1960, at about 10.00 P.M. went to Dori Lal confectioner and purchased sweets of the value of annas ten from him and gave him a currency note of Rs. 5/- towards the price thereof. Dori Lal suspected that the currency note was not genuine. He returned the same to the accused-appellant and requested him to give him another currency note. Thereupon the accused-appellant took out another note from the folds of his loin cloth and handed it over to Dori Lal. The latter found this currency note also of dubious nature. He returned it. In the meantime a lot of people had gathered at the spot and along with them came Jas want Rai Sub Inspector of Police who was on patrol duty at the time. He heard Dori Lal''s narration of events, searched the accused''s person and recovered 19 currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 5/- from the folds of his loin cloth. These were taken into possession and formed into a sealed parcel. Dori Lal''s statement Exhibit P.C. was recorded by way of first information report.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and explained that on 20th July, 1960 evening, Jaswant Rai Sub Inspector called him when he was going out for his prayers. He refused to comply with his orders which annoyed him and, therefore, a false case was conncocted against him.

Don Lal (P.W. 4), Radhey Sham (P.W. 6) and Jaswant Rai Sub Inspector of Police (P.W. 9) fully proved the recovery of 19 currency notes from the accused-appellant''s possession. There can be no dispute about this fact. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant urged that there was no evidence on the record to show that the above currency notes were counterfeit currency notes. According to him the trial court could not have taken into consideration opinion Exhibit P.E. of the Junior Supervisor, Expert in Detection of Forged Currency and Bank Notes, and verified by the Master, India Security Press, for coming to the conclusion that the currency notes were counterfeit or forged and in that connection referred me to section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the same was admitted in evidence, it runs as:-

(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or the Chief Inspector of Explosives or the Director of Finger Print Bureau or an officer of the Mint, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such person as to the subject-matter of his report.

The report Exhibit P.E. indeed does not fall within the abmit of the above provision of law as it has not been shown that the Junior Supervisor, Expert in Detection of Forged Currency and Bank Notes, or the Master, India Security Press, is an officer of the Mint. Further none of these two experts was examined as a witness in the case enabling the accused to test his knowledge by cross-examination. The report being not admissible in evidence could not have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge in holding that the currency notes said to have been recovered from the accused-appellant''s possession were counterfeit or forged. There is no other evidence worthy of consideration on the record, to prove that these notes were forged or counterfeit and that being so, the accused-appellant was entitled to acquittal.

For the above reasons, the accused appellant is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges. The amount of fine, if paid, should be refunded.