Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 12.9.2024 vs State Of H.P on 29 October, 2024
2024:HHC:10410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 337 of 2007
Reserved on: 12.9.2024
Date of Decision: 29.10.2024
Hardyal Singh and another …Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. …Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellants : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Vinod
Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 31.8.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court), Una, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which
the appellants Hardayal Singh and Mohinder Pal Singh (accused
before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced in the following manner:-
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2024:HHC:10410
(a) Accused Hardyal Singh
Under Section 489-B of IPC. To suffer simple imprisonment for
five years, pay a fine of ₹5,000/-
and in default of payment of
the fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for six months.
Under Section 489-C of IPC. To suffer simple imprisonment for
three years. Both the sentences
shall run concurrently.
(b) Accused Mohinder Pal Singh.
Under Section 489-C of IPC. To suffer simple imprisonment for
three years years.
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they
were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present
appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused
before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C read with Section
34 of IPC. It was asserted that Sanjeev Kumar (PW1) was running
a shop at Bharwain. The accused came to his shop on a
motorcycle on 3.4.2007 at about 4.20 PM and purchased two
3
2024:HHC:10410
breads. They handed over a currency note of ₹500/- bearing
Serial No. 9AD794902 towards the cost of the bread. Sanjeev
Kumar returned ₹480/- to the accused, however, he became
suspicious and took the currency note to the bank and showed it
to the bank officials. The bank officials revealed that the currency
note was fake. Informant Sanjeev Kumar followed the accused on
his scooter bearing registration no. HP-19A-8241 and
apprehended them at Lovely Sweets Shop, near Bus Stand,
Chintpurni. The accused revealed their names as Hardyal Singh
and Mohinder Pal Singh on inquiry. The informant, Vipin Kumar
(PW4) and Kuldeep Singh (PW13) apprehended the accused,
brought them in the Ambulance bearing registration No.HP-20-
3770 to the Police Post and narrated the incident to the police. An
entry No. 16 in the daily diary (Ex.PW1/A) was registered, which
was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was
registered. ASI Bishwas Kumar (PW15) investigated the matter.
He searched Hardyal Singh in the presence of Sanjeev Kumar and
Vipan Kumar and recovered six counterfeit currency notes of
₹500/- (Ex.P2 to Ex.P7), and genuine currency notes worth
₹8660/-(Ex.P15). These were seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). Six
currency notes (Ex. P8 to Ex.P13) and genuine currency notes
4
2024:HHC:10410
worth ₹11,045/- (Ex.P14) were found during the search of
Mohinder Pal, which were seized vide memo (Ex. PW1/D). ASI
Bishwas Kumar prepared the site plans (Ex.PW15/A and
Ex.PW15/B). The currency notes (Ex.P1 to Ex.P15) were sealed in a
parcel with seal P. The seal impression ‘P’ (Ex.PW15/C) was taken
on a separate piece of cloth and the seal was handed over to
Sanjeev Kumar after the use. The statements of witnesses were
recorded as per their version. The parcels were deposited with HC
Pawan Kumar (PW11), who handed them over to MHC Kusha Dutt
(PW7). These were sent to FSL, Junga for analysis. Dr. Meenakshi
Mahajan (PW14) examined the curency notes and found that
currency notes marked Q1 to Q13 were counterfeit. She issued the
report (Ex.PW14/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as
per their versions, and after the completion of the investigation,
a challan was prepared and presented in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb, District Una, H.P., who
committed it for trial to learned Sessions Judge, Una. Learned
Sessions Judge, Una assigned the case to learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court).
3. The learned Trial Court charged accused Mohinder Pal
Singh with the commission of an offence punishable under
5
2024:HHC:10410
Section 489-C and accused Hardyal Singh with the commission
of offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its
case. Sanjeev Kumar (PW1) is the informant to whom the
currency note of ₹500/- was given. Rakesh Kumar (PW2) was
working in the bank to whom the currency note was shown.
Constable Ashok Kumar (PW3) is the witness of recovery of the
affidavit. Vipin Kumar (PW4) is the shopkeeper from whose shop
the accused were apprehended, but he did not support the
prosecution case. Rattan Singh (PW5) is the father of Mohinder
Pal, who proved the purchase of a motorcycle by Mohinder Pal.
Constable Nardev Singh (PW6) proved the entry in the daily
diary. HC Kusha Dutt (PW7) was working as MHC, with whom the
case property was deposited. HC Manmohan Singh (PW8) was
also working as MHC, who sent the case property to FSL, Junga.
Constable Vipan Kumar (PW9) carried the case property to FSL,
Junga. HC Subhash Chand (PW10) is the witness to the recovery
of the currency note. HC Pawan Kumar (PW11) was working as
MC to whom the case property was initially handed over. HHC
Satnam Singh (PW12) carried the entry in the daily diary to Police
6
2024:HHC:10410
Station. Kuldeep Singh (PW13) accompanied the informant to the
Police Post. Dr Minakshi Mahajan (PW14) analysed the currency
notes and issued the report. ASI Biswas Kumar (PW15) conducted
the investigation.
5. The accused, in their statements recorded under
Section 313 of Cr. P.C., denied the prosecution case in its entirety.
They stated that the witnesses deposed against them falsely.
They were going to Mata Chintpurni and were stopped by the
police on a Naka near Chintpurni. The police demanded money
from them. They refused and a false case was made against them.
No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused.
6. The learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The mere
fact that Vipan Kumar (PW4) had not supported the prosecution
case was not sufficient to doubt it. The evidence on record
showed that the accused had handed over a currency note of
₹500/- to the informant. They were also found in possession of
other currency notes, which ruled out their innocent possession.
The plea taken by the accused that a false case was made against
them because of the quarrel with the police was not acceptable.
Both the accused were in possession of counterfeit currency
7
2024:HHC:10410
notes and accused Hardyal had used the counterfeit currency
note as genuine. Therefore, the accused were convicted and
sentenced as aforesaid.
7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed
by the learned Trial Court, the accused have filed the present
appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting
and sentencing the accused. The prosecution failed to provide
any evidence regarding the knowledge of the accused. Vipan
Kumar (PW4) did not support the prosecution case and his
testimony was sufficient to doubt the prosecution case regarding
the arrest of the accused and the recovery of counterfeit currency
notes from them. Independent witnesses were not examined
even though they were available and could have been associated
by the police. There were major contradictions and material
improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Learned Trial Court held that the accused had failed to disclose
the source of the counterfeit currency notes and they were liable.
This was contrary to the basic principle of criminal law which
requires prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and
8
2024:HHC:10410
the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set
aside.
8. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. V.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy
Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
9. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred
in convicting and sentencing the accused. The statement of Dr.
Meenakshi Mahajan was not sufficient to prove that the currency
notes were fake. Dr Meenakshi Mahajan does not fall within the
definition of an expert, and only the experts from Note Printing
Press or Security Printing Press were competent to depose about
the currency notes being counterfeit as per Section 292 of Cr.P.C.
Vipan Kumar (PW4) did not support the prosecution case and the
essential ingredients of Section 489-B of IPC that the accused
were aware of the fact that currency notes were fake and had
used them as genuine was missing. No person has deposed about
the knowledge of the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the
present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by
the learned Trial Court be set aside.
9
2024:HHC:10410
10. Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondent/State, submitted that Dr Meenakshi Mahajan
specifically stated in her statement that she had undergone
training regarding the currency notes and this part of her
testimony was not challenged. She would fall within the
definition of an expert and the learned Trial Court had rightly
relied upon her testimony. The mere fact that an independent
person had not supported the prosecution case is not sufficient
to discard it. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be
dismissed.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12. Dr Meenakshi Mahajan (PW14) stated in her
examination-in-chief that she had received training in respect of
the examination of questioned documents from the National
Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, New Delhi,
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, State
Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad and Currency Notes
Press at Nasik. Thus, she categorically stated that she had not
only undergone training regarding the questioned documents
from various institutions, but she had also undergone training
10
2024:HHC:10410
from Currency Note Press at Nasik. It was not even suggested to
her that she had not undergone training at Currency Notes Press,
Nasik. It was only inquired from her if she had not brought any
certificate regarding her qualification and experience. The part of
her testimony regarding her undergoing training at Currency
Notes Press, Nasik has remained unchallenged and has to be
accepted as correct. Thus, the submission that Dr Meenakshi
Mahajan does not fall within the definition of an expert and only
an expert from Note Printing Press has to be examined to prove
that a currency note is fake cannot be accepted.
13. Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan (PW14) has given detailed
reasons for her opinion that currency notes were fake. She
mentioned that currency notes were found to be counterfeit
because of defective quality of security thread, door latent image,
absence of intaglio printing, defective micro-printing, improper
location and different design of watermark, non-
superimposition of front to back register, and absence of genuine
ultraviolet features. These reasons are sufficient to conclude that
the currency notes were fake.
14. A reference was also made to Section 292 of Cr.P.C.,
which provides how the evidence of the Officers of the Mint or
11
2024:HHC:10410
Note Printing Press or Security Printing Press has to be taken.
This provision will not help the accused because it merely
provides a mode of proof and does not provide that only the
Officers of Mint, Note Printing Press or Security Printing Press
are competent to depose about the counterfeit currency notes.
Hence, the submission that the prosecution was required to get
the currency notes examined by the Officers of the Note Printing
Press or Security Printing Press and in the absence of such
examination, the currency notes cannot be called to be
counterfeit is not acceptable.
15. Sanjeev Kumar (PW1) stated that he is running a tea
stall and confectionery shop at Bharwain. The accused came to
his shop on 3.4.2007 at 4.15 PM on a motorcycle which was being
driven by Mohinder Pal. Accused Hardyal Singh was sitting as a
pillion rider. They purchased two packets of bread from him.
Accused Hardyal gave him a currency note of ₹500/-. He
returned ₹480/-. The accused left the shop. He took the currency
note and became suspicious that it was a counterfeit currency
note. He went to Kangra Central Cooperative Bank and showed it
to a bank official, who checked it and found that the note was
counterfeit. He followed the accused on his scooter and found
12
2024:HHC:10410
them at Lovely Sweets Shop Chintpurni. He told Hardyal that
the currency note given by him was counterfeit. The accused
tried to run away from the spot but they were apprehended by
the informant with the help of Vipan Kumar and others. The
accused were brought to Police Post Chintpurni in a vehicle
owned by Temple Trust Chintpurni. He handed over the currency
note to the police and narrated the incident to the police. The
police recorded an entry (Ex.PW1/A) and seized the currency note
vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). He identified the currency note which
was signed by him. A personal search of the accused was
conducted. Currency notes worth ₹8,000/- were found in the
possession of Hardyal out of which six currency notes worth
₹500/- were counterfeit. These were seized vide memo
(Ex.PW1/C). A search of Mohinder Pal was conducted and six
currency notes worth ₹1,000/- were found in his possession
which were seized by the police vide memo (Ex.PW1/D). He
identified the currency notes and the accused. He was permitted
to be cross-examined because he could not remember the exact
amount of genuine currency notes recovered from each of the
accused. He admitted in his cross-examination by learned Public
Prosecutor that the currency notes worth ₹11,045/- were
13
2024:HHC:10410
recovered from accused Mohinder Pal and genuine currency
notes worth ₹8660/- were recovered from accused Hardyal. He
could not tell the exact details of the currency notes as he had
forgotten the same with time.
16. He stated in his cross-examination by learned
counsel for the defence that the distance of Vipan’s shop was 200
mtrs. He generally puts the currency notes in his cash box. He
opens the shop at 5.00 AM and closes it at 7.30 PM in the summer
and 6.30 PM in winter. He had shown the counterfeit currency
note (Ex.P1) to the bank official but he did not remember the
name of the official. He had not gone to the Manager of the bank.
The official was sitting near the gate. He did not remember
whether he was a Peon or Clerk. He did not remember the details
of the currency notes (Ex.P14 and Ex.P15). The names of the
accused were told to him by the police at the Police Post at
Chintpurni. No expert was present at the time of the recovery. He
admitted that there were many shops located between his shop
and Kangra Central Cooperative Bank which were open. He
checked the currency notes immediately after the accused had
left his shop and he rushed to the bank within five minutes. He
admitted that many people came to his shop from Punjab while
14
2024:HHC:10410
visiting Mata Chintpurni. He denied that the accused did not
purchase any bread from him or accused had not handed over the
counterfeit currency note to him.
17. It was submitted that this witness was declared
hostile by the prosecution which means that the prosecution
does not consider him worthy of credit and learned Trial Court
erred in relying upon his testimony. This submission is not
acceptable. This witness was declared hostile because he was
unable to reveal the exact amount of genuine currency recovered
from the accused. He stated that he had forgotten the details. He
was bound to forget the details with time and this was no reason
for declaring him hostile or permitting him to be cross-
examined. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205: 2001 SCC (Cri)
323: 2000 SCC OnLine SC 1727 that the permission to cross-
examine a witness should not be given if the witness has omitted
some minor post-event detail and even if the witness was
declared hostile, the same is not sufficient to discard his
testimony. It was observed at page 213:
“10. The testimony of PW 2 has been assailed on the
ground that as he was allegedly declared hostile by the
Public Prosecutor, no reliance can be placed upon his
testimony. We have scrutinised the statement of PW 2 and
15
2024:HHC:10410find that he had fully supported the case of the
prosecution in all material particulars. In his
examination-in-chief the witness after vividly explaining
the manner in which the extrajudicial confession was
made, stated that after walking on foot for about 4
kilometres he, in the company of others, reached Police
Station Karanpur at about 12.00 noon and lodged the
report but the police station did not register a case on the
pretext that it was a family matter and that the report
would be registered only after making an inquiry in the
village. Finding such a statement to be resiling from the
earlier testimony, the Public Prosecutor sought the
permission of the court to declare the witness hostile and
“cross-examine him on the ground that he had not stated
that Exhibit P-2 was not registered at once”. The trial
court obliged the Public Prosecutor by permitting him to
cross-examine to that extent. The cross-examination by
the Public Prosecutor is restricted to the lodging of the
first information report and not with respect to the factum
of his deposition insofar as it relates to the making of
extrajudicial confession by the appellant. The defence also
appears to be conscious of the fact that the Public
Prosecutor had sought permission to cross-examine the
witness to a limited extent. The witness was subjected to
lengthy and detailed cross-examination with respect to
the making of extrajudicial confession by the appellant.
The trial as well as the High Court rightly relied upon his
testimony to hold that the appellant had voluntarily made
the extrajudicial confession to the aforesaid witness.
11. There appears to be a misconception regarding the
effect on the testimony of a witness declared hostile. It is a
misconceived notion that merely because a witness is
declared hostile his entire evidence should be excluded or
rendered unworthy of consideration. This Court
in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1976) 1 SCC 389:
1976 SCC (Cri) 7: AIR 1976 SC 202] held that merely because
the Court gave permission to the Public Prosecutor to
cross-examine his own witness describing him as a hostile
witness does not completely efface his evidence. The
evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no
16
2024:HHC:10410legal bar to base the conviction upon the testimony of such
witness. In Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa [(1976) 4
SCC 233: 1976 SCC (Cri) 566: AIR 1977 SC 170] it was
observed that by giving permission to cross-examine
nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided and
the witness does not become unreliable only by his
declaration as hostile. Merely on this ground, his whole
testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a
criminal trial where a prosecution witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by
the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of
general rule, be treated as washed off the record
altogether. It is for the court of fact to consider in each
case whether as a result of such cross-examination and
contradiction, the witness stands discredited or can still be
believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In
appropriate cases, the court can rely upon the part of the
testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is
found to be creditworthy.
12. The terms “hostile”, “adverse” or “unfavourable”
witnesses are alien to the Indian Evidence Act. The terms
“hostile witness”, “adverse witness”, “unfavourable
witness”, and “unwilling witness” are all terms of English
law. The rule of not permitting a party calling the witness
to cross-examine is relaxed under the common law by
evolving the terms “hostile witness and unfavourable
witness”. Under the common law, a hostile witness is
described as one who is not desirous of telling the truth at
the instance of the party calling him and an unfavourable
witness is one called by a party to prove a particular fact in
issue or relevant to the issue who fails to prove such fact,
or proves the opposite test. In India, the right to cross-
examine the witnesses by the party calling him is
governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. Section 142 requires that leading questions cannot be
put to the witness in examination-in-chief or re-
examination except with the permission of the court. The
court can, however, permit leading questions as to the
matters which are introductory or undisputed or which
have, in its opinion, already been sufficiently proved.
17
2024:HHC:10410
Section 154 authorises the court in its discretion to permit
the person who calls a witness to put any question to him
which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse
party. The courts are, therefore, under a legal obligation to
exercise the discretion vesting in them in a judicious
manner by proper application of mind and keeping in view
the attending circumstances. Permission for cross-
examination in terms of Section 154 of the Evidence Act
cannot and should not be granted at the mere asking of the
party calling the witness. Extensively dealing with the
terms “hostile, adverse and unfavourable witnesses” and
the object of the provisions of the Evidence Act this Court
in Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn. [(1976) 1 SCC 727: 1976 SCC (Cri)
160: AIR 1976 SC 294] held: (SCC pp. 741-43 & 745-46,
paras 38-40 & 52)
“38. To steer clear of the controversy over the meaning
of the terms ‘hostile’ witness, ‘adverse’ witness, and
‘unfavourable’ witness which had given rise to
considerable difficulty and conflict of opinion in
England, the authors of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
seem to have advisedly avoided the use of any of those
terms so that, in India, the grant of permission to
cross-examine his own witness by a party is not
conditional on the witness being declared ‘adverse’ or
‘hostile’. Whether it be the grant of permission under
Section 142 to put leading questions, or the leave under
Section 154 to ask questions which might be put in
cross-examination by the adverse party, the Indian
Evidence Act leaves the matter entirely to
the discretion of the court (see the observations of Sir
Lawrence Jenkins in Baikuntha Nath
Chattorji v. Prasannamoyi Debya [AIR 1922 PC 409: 27
CWN 797]. The discretion conferred by Section 154 on
the court is unqualified and untrammelled, and is apart
from any question of ‘hostility’. It is to be liberally
exercised whenever the court from the witnesses’
demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the tenor and
tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of his
previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise, thinks
that the grant of such permission is expedient to
18
2024:HHC:10410
extract the truth and to do justice. The grant of such
permission does not amount to an adjudication by the
court as to the veracity of the witness. Therefore, in
order granting such permission, it is preferable to
avoid the use of such expressions, such as ‘declared
hostile’, and ‘declared unfavourable’, the significance
of which is still not free from the historical cobwebs
which, in their wake bring a misleading legacy of
confusion and conflict that had so long vexed the
English courts.
39. It is important to note that the English statute
differs materially from the law contained in the Indian
Evidence Act in regard to cross-examination and
contradiction of his own witness by a party. Under
English law, a party is not permitted to impeach the
credit of his own witness by general evidence of his bad
character, shady antecedents or previous conviction. In
India, this can be done with the consent of the court
under Section 155. Under the English Act of 1865, a
party calling the witness can ‘cross-examine’ and
contradict a witness in respect of his previous
inconsistent statements with the leave of the
court, only when the court considers the witness to be
‘adverse’. As already noticed, no such condition has
been laid down in Sections 154 or 155 of the Indian Act
and the grant of such leave has been left completely to
the discretion of the court, the exercise of which is not
fettered by or dependent upon the ‘hostility’ or
‘adverseness’ of the witness. In this respect, the Indian
Evidence Act is in advance of English law. The Criminal
Law Revision Committee of England in its Eleventh
Report made recently, has recommended the adoption
of a modernised version of Section 3 of the Criminal
Procedure Act, 1865, allowing contradiction of both
unfavourable and hostile witnesses by other evidence
without leave of the court. The Report is, however, still
in favour of retention of the prohibition on a party’s
impeaching his own witness by evidence of bad
character.
19
2024:HHC:10410
40. The danger of importing, without due discernment,
the principles enunciated in ancient English decisions,
for interpreting and applying the Indian Evidence Act,
has been pointed out in several authoritative
pronouncements. In Praphullakumar Sarkar v. Emperor
[ILR (1931) 58 Cal 1404: AIR 1931 Cal 401 (FB)] an
eminent Chief Justice, Sir George Rankin cautioned,
that
‘when we are invited to hark back to dicta delivered
by English Judges, however eminent, in the first half
of the nineteenth century, it is necessary to be
careful lest principles be introduced which the
Indian Legislature did not see fit to enact’.
It was emphasised that these departures from English
law ‘were taken either to be improvements in
themselves or calculated to work better under Indian
conditions’.
***
52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that
even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court,
by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a
matter of law, be treated as washed off the record
altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each
case whether as a result of such cross-examination and
contradiction, the witness stand thoroughly discredited
or can still be believed in regard to a part of his
testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the
credit of the witness has not been completely shaken,
he may, after reading and considering the evidence of
the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care,
accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record,
that part of his testimony which he finds to be
creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the
whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and
in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally
discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence,
discard his evidence in toto.”
20
2024:HHC:10410
13. We deprecate the manner in which the prayer was
made by the Public Prosecutor and permission granted by
the trial court to cross-examine Jarnail Singh (PW 2)
allegedly on the ground of his being hostile. On facts, we
find that the said witness was wrongly permitted to be
cross-examined. It was only on a post-event detail that he
did not concur with the suggestion made by the Public
Prosecutor. That single point, in our opinion, was too
insufficient for the Public Prosecutor to proclaim that the
witness made a volte face and became totally hostile to the
prosecution. Otherwise, also, the permission granted and
utilised for cross-examination was limited to the extent of
the time of lodging the first information report (Exhibit P-
2). There is no reason to disbelieve PW 2 who is closely
related to the appellant and has no reason to falsely
implicate, particularly when no inducement, threat or
promise is allegedly given or assured.
18. In the present case, the informant was not
contradicted with reference to his previous testimony and was
not shown to have made inconsistent statements on two
different occasions. Hence, his credit has not been impeached
with reference to the previous statement and he cannot be called
a witness unworthy of the credit. Further, the testimony of the
hostile witness is not effaced from the record and the part of his
testimony that is consistent with the prosecution case or the
defence version and corroborated by other evidence that can be
relied upon. Therefore, submission that the testimony of the
informant has to be discarded because he was declared hostile by
the prosecution is not acceptable.
21
2024:HHC:10410
19. It was submitted that there are many shops between
his shop and the bank and he needed not to visit the bank to
verify the genuineness of the currency notes. He could have had
the currency note examined by any shopkeeper. This submission
is not acceptable. When the informant became suspicious about
the genuineness of the currency notes, it was natural for him to
rush to the bank to get the currency note examined by some bank
official who would be better equipped than the ordinary person
to find out whether the currency notes were fake or not.
Therefore, he was justified in going to the bank and getting the
currency note examined by the bank official.
20. His testimony is corroborated by Rakesh Kumar
(PW2), who stated that he was working as a water carrier in the
Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Bharwain. Sanjeev Kumar
(PW1) came to Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Bharwain on
3.7.2007 at about 4.30 PM and showed him a currency note of
₹500/-. Sanjeev Kumar enquired whether the currency note was
genuine or not. He looked at the note and told Sanjeev Kumar
that it was a counterfeit currency note. He stated in his cross-
examination that he was a water carrier and not an expert. He did
not remember whether the currency note was signed when it was
22
2024:HHC:10410
shown to him. The informant met him outside the bank on a
roadside and the currency note was shown to him. The informant
returned without entering into the bank. He denied that no
currency note was shown to him.
21. It was submitted that he is not an expert and is merely
a water carrier, therefore, he could not have deposed about the
currency note being counterfeit or genuine. This submission
cannot be accepted. He was working in the bank and as per the
report of analysis; the currency note had a defective quality of
security thread, absence of intaglio printing, improper location
of watermark and non-superimposition of front to back register
which would have enabled any person to look into the same and
find out whether the note was genuine or not. Further, the
opinion of this witness was not final and it merely confirmed the
suspicion of the informant. Therefore, the fact that this witness
had identified the currency notes as counterfeit will not
adversely affect the prosecution case.
22. Vipan Kumar (PW4) did not support the prosecution
case. He stated that he did not know anything about the case. He
had signed the documents at the instance of the police. He was
permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that the accused
23
2024:HHC:10410
came to his shop on 3.4.2007 on a motorcycle. He denied that
Sanjeev Kumar also came to his shop and inquired about the
accused and told him that the accused had purchased two packets
of bread against a counterfeit currency note of ₹500/-. He denied
that he, Sanjeev Kumar and other persons had caught the
accused. He denied that the police had seized counterfeit
currency notes from the informant. He denied that the search of
the accused was conducted during which counterfeit currency
notes and genuine currency notes were recovered. He denied the
previous statement recorded by the police or that he was
deposing falsely to save the accused from punishment.
23. ASI Bishwas Kumar (PW15) specifically stated that he
had recorded the statement of Vipan Kumar (Ex.PW15/D) as per
his version. He denied in his cross-examination that Vipan
Kumar never visited the Police Post, Chintpurni nor did he give
any statement. A denied suggestion does not amount to any
proof and it is not sufficient to discard the testimony of ASI
Bishwas Kumar that he had recorded the statement of Vipan
Kumar as per his version.
24. Thus, Vipan Kumar is shown to have made two
inconsistent statements on two different occasions: one before
24
2024:HHC:10410
the Police and one before the Court. Thus, his credit has
been impeached under Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act
and he is shown to be a witness who is unworthy of the credit.
Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony and
the learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the same. (please
see Dilo Begum vs. State of H.P. 2024: HHC:1519 para 24 to 34)
25. Kuldeep Singh (PW13) stated that many persons
gathered at Lovely Sweets Shop, Chintpurni on 3.4.2007 at about
4.30 pm. Sanjeev Kumar and Vipan Kumar were also present.
Sanjeev Kumar told him that the accused had given him a
currency note of ₹500/-. He took Sanjeev Kumar, Vipan Kumar
and the accused to the Police Post, Chintpurni in a vehicle
bearing registration no. HP-20A-3770, which was an Ambulance.
He stated in his cross-examination that the Ambulance was used
for carrying the sick person and remained parked in front of the
Pankaj Hotel, ahead of the barrier. Lovely Sweets Shop is located
at a distance of 50 meters from the barrier towards Bharwain.
The parking place of the light vehicle was near Lovely Sweets
Shop. He was not called by any person and went to the spot on his
own. 4-5 people were sitting in the vehicle out of whom Sanjeev
Kumar and Vipan Kumar were known to him. He dropped them at
25
2024:HHC:10410
the Police Post and left thereafter. He denied that he had not
taken the accused or other persons to the Police Post.
26. His statement is corroborated by the entry
(Ex.PW1/A), wherein his name has been mentioned as the person
accompanying the informant. There is nothing in his cross-
examination to show that he is making a false statement or that
he has any motive to depose falsely against the accused. His
testimony duly corroborates the statement of the informant that
the accused were apprehended on the spot and thereafter they
were taken to the Police Post, Bharwain.
27. It was submitted that he had used an Ambulance to
transport the accused and the other person to the Police Station.
This will not make any difference to the prosecution case. The
accused were apprehended on the spot and were to be taken to
the Police Post which was located at some distance from the spot.
His vehicle was nearest to the place and if he had used the
Ambulance, the same is not sufficient to discard his testimony.
28. It was submitted that many people had gathered on
the spot as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses,
however, the prosecution had not examined those persons and
an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
26
2024:HHC:10410
This submission is not acceptable. The people are generally
reluctant to join the investigation because it involves repeated
visits to the Court and cross-examination by the learned defence
counsel. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241: 1988 SCC (Cri) 559
that the prosecution case cannot be doubted due to the non-
examination of the independent witnesses. It was observed at
page 245:
“11. In light of these principles, we may now consider the
first contention urged by the learned counsel for the
appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the
prosecution to examine independent witnesses. The High
Court has examined this contention but did not find any
infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the
prosecution has not been able to produce any independent
witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand.
There must have been several such witnesses. But the
prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that
ground alone. The experience reminds us that civilized
people are generally insensitive when a crime is
committed even in their presence. They withdraw both
from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves
away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that
a crime like a civil dispute is between two individuals or
parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind
of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but
it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or
cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the
investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court,
therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for
want of independent witness must consider the broad
spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for
27
2024:HHC:10410the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any,
suggested by the accused.”
29. It was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pohlu v.
State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 196, that the intrinsic worth of the
testimony of witnesses has to be assessed by the Court and if the
testimony of the witnesses appears to be truthful, the non-
examination of other witnesses will not make the testimony
doubtful. It was observed: –
“[10] It was then submitted that some of the material
witnesses were not examined and, in this connection, it
was argued that two of the eye-witnesses named in the
FIR, namely, Chander and Sita Ram were not examined by
the prosecution. Dharamvir, son of Sukhdei was also not
examined by the prosecution though he was a material
witness, being an injured eyewitness, having witnessed
the assault that took place in the house of Sukhdei PW 2. It
is true that it is not necessary for the prosecution to
multiply witnesses if it prefers to rely upon the evidence of
eyewitnesses examined by it, which it considers sufficient
to prove the case of the prosecution. However, the
intrinsic worth of the testimony of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution has to be assessed by the
Court. If their evidence appears to be truthful, reliable and
acceptable, the mere fact that some other witnesses have
not been examined, will not adversely affect the case of
the prosecution. We have, therefore, to examine the
evidence of the two eye witnesses namely, PW 1 and PW 2,
and to find whether their evidence is true, on the basis of
which the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. ”
30. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Srichand K. Khetwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCC OnLine SC
32 : (1967) 1 SCR 595: AIR 1967 SC 450: 1967 Cri LJ 414 : (1967) 2 SCJ
28
2024:HHC:10410
178, that an adverse inference can be drawn for withholding
certain evidence and not for failure to obtain the evidence. It was
observed:-
“8. Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution
can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not
merely on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence.
When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be
said what that evidence could have been and therefore no
question of presuming that that evidence would have been
against the prosecution, under Section 114, illustration (g)
of the Evidence Act, can arise.”
31. In the present case, nothing was shown against the
informant, Kuldeep or Vipan that they are not independent
persons and the prosecution case cannot be discarded because
other persons who were present and could have deposed about
the incident were not associated by the police.
32. The testimonies of the informant Sanjeev Kumar and
Kuldeep clearly prove that the accused were apprehended on the
spot and they were taken to the Police Post, Bharwain. Statement
of the informant Sanjeev Kumar also proved that accused
Hardyal had handed over a currency note to him which was
subsequently found to be counterfeit by Dr. Meenakshi Mahajan
(PW14).
29
2024:HHC:10410
33. ASI Bishwas Kumar (PW15) stated that he conducted a
personal search of accused Hardayal and recovered six
counterfeit currency notes of ₹500/- each (Ex.P2 to Ex.P7) and
genuine currency notes worth ₹8660/-. Similarly, he conducted
a personal search of Mohinder Pal and recovered six counterfeit
currency notes worth ₹1,000/- each (Ex.P8 to Ex.P13) and
genuine currency notes worth ₹11,045/- (Ex.P14). He stated in
his cross-examination that he had not called any expert to Police
Post, Chintpurni. He was not an expert on counterfeit currency
notes. The shop of Sanjeev Kumar was situated at Bharwain
towards Mubarakpur. He was not aware of the total sale of the
shop. Sanjeev Kumar and Vipan Kumar remained in the Post Post
Chintpurni for not more than 1½ hours. He denied that he had
set up a nakka and had an altercation with the accused. He denied
that he demanded ₹10,000/- from the accused person because he
did not have the registration certificate. He denied that he falsely
implicated the accused due to the altercation.
34. This witness denied the defence suggestion that he
had an altercation with the accused person due to which they
were falsely implicated. A denied suggestion does not amount to
any proof and is not sufficient to discard the prosecution version.
30
2024:HHC:10410
Moreover, the accused had not made any complaint to any
person not even to the learned Magistrate, when they were
produced before the Court regarding the false implication.
Further, it is difficult to believe that all the witnesses would have
supported ASI Bishwas Kumar merely because he had an
altercation with the accused persons.
35. HC Subhash Chand (PW10) is the witness to the
recovery of the counterfeit currency note of ₹500/-. He stated
that Sanjeev Kumar produced a counterfeit currency note of
500/- which was seized by the police vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). He
stated in his cross-examination that the distance between the
shop of the informant and the Police Post, Chintpurni was about
half a kilometre. Shop of the informant was a big shop and he had
a good business. He denied that he had set up a nakka, had an
altercation with the accused and falsely implicated the accused.
36. This witness has also denied the defence version
regarding the false implication of the accused. Sanjeev Kumar-
informant and ASI Bishwas categorically deposed about the
production of the currency note.
37. The seizure memo (Ex.PW1/C) shows that a currency
note bearing Serial No. 9AD794991 was recovered from the
31
2024:HHC:10410
possession of Hardyal Singh. The currency note produced by the
informant was bearing Serial No.9AD794908. Thus, the currency
note produced by the informant had the same series as the
currency note recovered from Hardyal which corroborates the
version of the informant that the currency note was handed over
to him by the accused.
38. It was submitted that the prosecution is required to
prove that the accused knew about the currency notes being
counterfeit. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the
possession of a large number of counterfeit currency notes
showed the knowledge of the accused. It was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponnusamy v. State, 1997 SCC (Cri) 217 :
(1995) Cr.LJ 2658 that when the accused had used a forged
currency note and was also found in possession of counterfeit
currency notes, he was properly convicted in the absence of any
explanation from where he had obtained the currency notes. It
was observed:-
“The verdicts of the three courts below are similar in
convicting and maintaining the convictions of the
appellant under Sections 489-B and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code. The case of the prosecution against the
appellant is that he had purchased paddy from a peasant
on payment of 130 forged currency notes of Rs. 100.00
denomination, On the arrest of the appellant, further
32
2024:HHC:10410forged currency notes were alleged to have been found in
his possession for which he had to face a trial separately.
All the same. The appellant had no explanation to offer as to
wherefrom had he obtained those forged currency notes.
Silence on the part of the appellant in such circumstances
would by itself be a telling circumstance which would weigh
against him in the consideration of the prosecution evidence
led against him. In these circumstances, we are of the view
that the convictions recorded deserve no alteration and
equally there is no scope for reduction of sentence.
Maintaining the convictions and sentences of the
appellant, we dismiss this appeal.” (Emphasis supplied)
39. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held
that the accused was supposed to provide an explanation
regarding the source of the currency notes and in the absence of
the same, the accused would be imputed with a knowledge of the
currency notes being forged.
40. Thus, it was duly proved that accused Hardyal had
handed over a counterfeit currency note to the informant.
Accused Hardyal and Mohinder Pal were also found in possession
of the counterfeit notes. Therefore, accused Hardyal was rightly
convicted of the commission of the offence punishable under
Section 489-B of IPC and both the accused were rightly convicted
for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 489-
C of IPC.
41. The learned Trial Court sentenced accused Hardyal to
undergo simple imprisonment for five years for the commission
33
2024:HHC:10410
of an offence punishable under Section 489-B and had sentenced
both the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three
years for the commission of an offence punishable under Section
489-C of IPC. Keeping in view the fact that counterfeiting
currency affects the economy of the country adversely, the
sentence of five years and three years cannot be said to be
excessive and no interference is required with the sentence
imposed by the learned Trial Court.
42. No other point was urged.
43. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the
present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
44. Records be sent back forthwith. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
29th October, 2024
(Chander)