AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Joymalya Bagchi, J
The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Asansol, Burdwan in Special (CBI) case no. 6 of 2012 arising out of R.C. No. 5 of 2011 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 489B/489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 120B IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Appellant along with four others were placed on trial on the allegation that Berhampur Sub-Regional Unit of DRI effected seizure on 29.10.2010 of Indian currency notes suspected to be fake to the tune of Rs. 27,95,500/-comprising of 1596 pieces of Rs. 1000/- denomination each, 2399 pieces of Rs. 500/- denomination each from the possession of the appellant when the latter was about to hand over two ladies' bags containing the said currency notes to two women at Dhulian Ganga Railway station. All of them had arrived at the railway station to board Azimgunj Barharwa passenger train for carrying the consignment of fake Indian Currency Notes (FICNs) to Patna. It appears from the statement of the appellant that the consignment had been smuggled into India from Bangladesh through Kaliachak. Appellant had acted upon the instruction of one Nikhil Mondal (acquitted co-accused) and had gone to hand over the two bags to the female accused persons. It further came to light that one Jamal Sheik (acquitted co-accused) was involved in arranging the import of fake Indian currency notes from Bangladesh. It was also disclosed that the appellant procured the FICNs from one Kamal, a resident of Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
On a written complaint lodged by one D.B Chaudhary, Deputy Director of DRI (P.W 7) R.C case no. 5 of 2011 was registered for investigation.
In the course of investigation, seized notes were sent for examination and upon obtaining expert opinion, charge sheet was filed in the instant case. Charges were framed under section 489B and 489C IPC against the appellant and Santi Basak @ Gita Sen and Tumpa Basak and under section 120B read with section 489B/489C against the appellant Santi, Tumpa, Nikhil Mondal and Jamal Sk.
In the course of trial prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Tumpa and Santi Basak were also convicted and sentenced under section 489C and 120B IPC while Nikhil and Jamal Sk. were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
Appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence in the present appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution case suffers from various infirmities. Currency notes were not seized from the possession of the appellant at the place of occurrence. Alleged seizure took place at DRI office and there is every possibility of false implication. No witness present at the railway station were examined and the independent witnesses to the seizure had been summoned at the DRI office. They are pocket witnesses of the prosecution having deposed in other cases. He accordingly prays for acquittal. In the alternative, he submits that sentence imposed on the appellant who does not have criminal antecedent to be reduced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for CBI submits that prosecution case of recovery of a large volume of fake Indian currency notes has been proved by the official witnesses. Their evidence is corroborated by independent witnesses. Merely because some of the witnesses had deposed in earlier cases, their deposition cannot be discarded. Report of CFL (Ext 40) established beyond doubt that the seized currency notes were fake. In view of the large volume of seizure, imposition of maximum sentence is justified.
P.W. 1, Prabir Kumar Bhadra, was a Senior Intelligence Officer attached to DRI, Berhampore. On 29.10.2010 he along with other officers, DRI, Calcutta Zonal Unit, Inspector of Central Excise, Berhampore went out for conducting raid at Dhulian Ganga Railway station on the basis of source information. In the evening around 7.25 P.M. they reached the railway station. They noticed a person handing over two ladies' bags to two women. They apprehended the said persons. The male person disclosed his identity as the appellant while the two women disclosed their names as Gita and Tumpa. They admitted two ladies' bags contained FICNs brought from Bangladesh. Accordingly, the aforesaid persons along with two bags were taken to DRI office at 3/20, K.K. Banerjee Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad. In the presence of independent witnesses Rs. 27,95,50/- of FICNs were recovered from two ladies' bags comprising of 1596 notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/- each and 2399 notes of denomination Rs. 500/- each. Notice was issued to the appellant and others under section 108 of the Customs Act and in response thereto they made statements admitting their guilt. Statements were marked as Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7. The currency notes suspected to be fake were seized under a seizure list prepared by Bidyut Kr. Tikader, P.W. 5 herein. Notes were sealed in an envelope and duly marked as per order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The sealed packets of FICNs were sent to Deputy Director, DRI Sub-Zonal Unit, Kolkata. Suspected notes were seized by Inspector of Police, CBI, New Delhi under a seizure memo, Exhibit 9.
The evidence of P.W. 1 has been corroborated by other members of the raiding party, namely P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10. Evidence of the official witnesses have been corroborated by eyewitnesses, namely P.W. 2, P.W. 3. P.W. 2 deposed that he was present at the time of seizure of Fake Indian Currency Notes and other articles from the appellant and the two other accused persons. He proved his signature on the seizure list as well as on the Panchnama. He, however, admitted that he was witness in another case of DRI. P.W. 3 proved his signature on the seizure list and Panchnama.
On the complaint of P.W. 7, D. Basak Chowdhury, the case was transferred to CBI and Investigation was conducted by P.W. 20, H.S. Sachan. He collected the Panchnama, petition of complaint, the statement of the accused persons recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. He collected the seizure list from DRI. He collected the report from the expert. He submitted the charge-sheet.
From the aforesaid evidence on record I find that the seizure of the currency notes from the appellant and two other accused persons, namely Gita and Tumpa have been proved beyond doubt. Evidence of the official witnesses, namely P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 is corroborated by independent witnesses, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. It is argued that they were witnesses in earlier DRI cases. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have been extensively cross-examined but no doubt could be made to their consistent versions. Merely because a person was an witness in an earlier case his evidence cannot be discarded on such score alone. [see Nana Keshav Lagad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 12 SCC 721, Para 26, Mahesh Janardhan Gonnade Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cri.L.J. 3602, Para 45]
It has been argued that the seizures were not made at the place of occurrence i.e. the railway station. In view of the fact that the railway station was a busy place and to ensure safety and security of the accused persons and the seized articles, DRI official particularly P.W. 1 decided to escorted the appellant and two other accused persons, namely, Gita and Tumpa to DRI office and conducted search and seizure there. Procedure adopted by the DRI officials cannot be said to be unnatural and in the light of the corroboration from independent witnesses the prosecution case cannot be discarded on this ground.
Chain of custody of the seized currency notes have also been established and Exhibit 40, report of the Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Limited, establishes beyond doubt that the seized notes were fake.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the conviction of the appellant has been correctly recorded and requires to be upheld.
Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the appellant has been imposed the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. No doubt, the seizure in the instant case is of a large volume of FICNs. However, the appellant does not have any criminal antecedent. Co-accused persons namely, Gita and Tumpa have been sentenced to imprisonment for five years on the charge of Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant played a more predominant role in dealing in transporting FICNs than his lady associates in the present case.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and balancing the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating factors and gravity of the circumstances, I am of the view that maximum sentence imposed on the appellant may be reduced to some extent.
Accordingly, I direct that the appellant be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further period of rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence punishable under section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further period of rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence punishable under section 489C of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further period of rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
With the aforesaid modification as to sentence, the appeal is disposed of.
The period of detention suffered by appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Copy of the judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
I agree.