PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Appellant and another, named Moinuddin, were arrested together on 21 st November, 1997 at about 02:00 p.m. from a wine shop on the ground that they were using, as genuine, counterfeit currency notes and were also possessing the same. In the First Information Report as well as in the recovery memo, followed by the arrest, it was recorded that, on a tip received from an informer, police party came to learn that two people will visit the wine shop in question for the purpose of using counterfeit notes and, accordingly, the police party reached the wine shop and expressed the reason for reaching there to the salesman attending the wine shop. Soon thereafter, two people came to the wine shop and one of them requested for a half bottle of rum. In compliance with such request, the salesman concerned kept on the shelf a half bottle rum. When one of those two people was about to handover a Rs. 100 note to the salesman, at that time, the policemen arrested those two people. One of them held out that he is Moinuddin, from whom, 23 notes were recovered and the other one was the appellant, who was holding one single note in his hand.
(2.) Having regard to the nature of the case, as was made in the First Information Report as well as in the search memo, investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed against both the arrested people for offences punishable under Sections 489-B and 489-C, as also Section 420, of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charges were framed against the appellant and Moinuddin for offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, appellant as well as Moinuddin obtained bail. While the appellant honoured the conditions of bail and, accordingly, made himself available in course of trial; Moinuddin disappeared. In the circumstances, trial of the case as against the appellant and Moinuddin was separated. Trial of the case, insofar as the appellant is concerned, was concluded, whereupon, appellant has been convicted under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 420 of the Indian Penal Code basically on the basis of the arrest memo, search memo and oral evidence given by PW1 Rajveer Singh Pundir, S.I., who was instrumental in arresting the appellant and Moinuddin and preparing the recovery memo. Being aggrieved thereby, appellant has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) We have considered the materials on record, the judgment under appeal and heard learned counsel for the parties.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.