Dismissed

Jahanurbir Gayasuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Apr 2019APEAL/68/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged her conviction for circulating counterfeit currency notes under sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, noting that prosecution witnesses identified the appellant and expert opinion confirmed the notes were counterfeit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is required to pay professional fees to the learned Counsel appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Jahanurbir Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

205.apeal68.13.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2013

¶4

Smt. Jahanurbir Gayasuddin Shaikh. Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Age : 40 years, Occ.: Labour,

¶5

Residing at Bangalipura, Indiranagar

¶6

Zopadpatti, Near Raja Masjid,

¶7

1^st Lane, Mandala, Mankhurd, Mumbai. V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

..Appellant.

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

Smt. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, advocate appointed for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for State.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J.

¶13

DATE : APRIL 15, 2019.

¶14

JUDGMENT :

¶15

1 The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for 3 months. The appellant herein is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 489(C) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for 3 months by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai vide Judgment and Order dated 21/7/2012 in Sessions Case No.

Talwalkar

205.apeal68.13.doc

7 of 2012. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

2 Such of the facts necessary for decision of this case are as

¶21

follows :

¶22

(i) One Ramsurat Kewat was selling utencils in Mankhurd. On 2/9/2011 he was at PMGP colony. At about 7.30 p.m. one lady has purchased utensils worth Rs. 90 and towards payment of the same, she had handed over Rs. 1000/- currency note. Ramsurat Kewat had returned the remainder amount.

¶23

(ii) He had some suspicion about the genuineness of the said currency. On 3/9/2011 he approached Hindustan Co-operative Bank and handed over the said currency note to the cashier. At that juncture, he learnt that said note is counterfeit note.

¶24

(iii) On the same day, he intercepted the present appellant, who had handed over counterfeit note and confronted her with the same. At that juncture, other shop keepers had approached Mr. Kewat. All of them had been cheated by the present appellant, who used to circulate counterfeit currency notes and thereafter, Mr. Kewat has lodged a report at the police station.

Talwalkar

205.apeal68.13.doc

(iv) The appellant was brought to the police station by the first informant and 3 other shop keepers. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 240 of 2011 was registered under section 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code against accused.

¶29

(v) The appellant was arrested. The other shopkeepers who are witnesses, had handed over the counterfeit notes circulated by the present appellant in their favour. She was shown as arrested on 4/9/2011. A report was received from the Currency Note Press, Nashik that the said notes sent to them were counterfeit notes.

¶30

3 At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The case rests upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramsurat Kewat P.W 2 Nitin Tambole, who happened to be cashier of Hindustan Cooperative Bank. The other witnesses are the people who had received counterfeit notes from the appellant. P.W.7 PSI Mandhare and P.W. 8 Pravin Tejale are the Investigating Officers.

¶31

4 The prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant had circulated counterfeit notes on 5 occasions in favour of 5 different persons. She was identified by the witnesses. She was taken to police

Talwalkar

205.apeal68.13.doc

station also by the witnesses. In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has seized the counterfeit notes.

¶36

5 It was the contentions of the defence counsel that to establish the offence punishable under section 489(B) and (C) of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to firstly establish that the appellant had knowledge that the said currency was counterfeit currency. According to the learned Counsel, there is no reason assigned by the prosecution witnesses to hold that the appellant had knowledge about the counterfeit currency notes.

¶37

6 In the course of the trial, the prosecution has placed on record the expert opinion. The concerned authority who is expert in currency note opined that five notes which, were sent to the Currency Note Press were found to be counterfeit currency note. The witnesses including first informant could not be shattered in the crossexamination. On 3/9/2011 the witness has seen that there was quarrel which had ensued between the parties.

¶38

7 The appellant had undergone the sentence imposed upon her. The witnesses in the present case have identified the accused rightly and have also identified her in the court. Several people had been victimised

Talwalkar

205.apeal68.13.doc

in such offences. Taking into consideration the overall aspect of the matter, conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 489B and C deserves to be maintained. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶43

8 The professional fees to be quantified as per rule to be paid to the learned Counsel appointed to espouse the cause of the appellant by the High Court Legal Services Committee within 3 months from today.

¶44

9 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

[SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

¶46

Talwalkar

Jahanurbir Gayasuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahanurbir Gayasuddin Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs M/S. Biotor Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Amol Vishwas Ovhal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunal Kishorbhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip Jalindar Pokharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd. Munna Mushtaq Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aatish Krishnat Salunkhe and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.