This judgment will dispose of instant Jail Criminal Appeal No, 745/2005, directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2005, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kohat in sessions Case No, 32/2005, whereby appellant Amar Chand son of Merl Mall, aged about 35 years, resident of Chandka Pull, Wakeel Colony, District Larkana, was convicted under Section 489-B PPC and sentenced to five years R.I. with fine of Rs, 50,000/-or in default to suffer further S.I. for one year. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was, however, extended to him.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is, that on 18.2.2005, at about 6.00 a.m., a passenger bus bearing Registration No, 6857 Peshawar, coming from Dara Adam Khel side was stopped at Police Check Post, High Way, Kohat A young man having a pair of Wive in plastic bag lying in his lap, was found sitting in the bus. He was deboarded from the bus. The `chapals' were checked and in both the `chapals' 97 forged currency notes of Rs, 1000 denomination each were recovered. The notes were taken into possession and sealed into parcels. On inquiry, the accused disclosed his name Amar Chand. The accused was arrested and a case was registered against him, vide FIR No, 134 dated 18.2.2005 under Section 489(b) PPC, Police Station, Saddar Kohat.
3. After complying with legal formalities, the Investigating Officer submitted the challan before the trial Court, where prosecution produced six witnesses, namely, HC Gui Shamin (PW.1), ASI Miftahuddin (PW.2), Taj . Muhammad Khan Assistant Currency, State Bank of Pakistan, Peshawar, (PW.3), ASI Saifur Rehman (PW.4), SI Jehangir Khan (PW.5) and FC Qadeer Hasrat (PW.6), to substantiate the charge against the appellant.
4. Appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. wherein he repudiated the prosecution allegations against him, professed innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated in the case. He neither appeared as his own witness as required under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in defence.
5. The trial Court upon examination of material on record adjudged the appellant guilty of, the offence and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.
6. Miss Sadiya Siddiqui, Advocate in support of the appeal, contended that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant and for that matter the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is erroneous and is the outcome of misreading and non-appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned counsel next contended that the recovery of forged currency notes was not witnessed by independent private witnesses and the recovery so effected from the appellant was in violation of Section 103 Cr.P.C.
7. Mr. Aminur Rehman, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgment maintaining that the recovery having been satisfactorily proved, appeal merits outright dismissal.
8. Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been carefully considered with reference to the material on the file,
9. The prosecution in order to prove the factum of apprehension of the appellant and recovery of forged currency notes from his possession, has produced ASI Miftahuddin (PW.2), Assistant Currency Officer Taj Muhammad Khan (PW.3), ASI Saifur Rehman (PW.4) and FC Qadeer Hasrat (PW.6). All these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story. They have demonstrated complete unanimity on all important aspects of the case and faced the test of cross examination successfully. I have not been able to find out any describable discrepancy or lacuna in the prosecution evidence to suggest that the recovery had not been effected in the manner as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The inconsistencies referred by the learned appellant's counsel are neither material nor of any consequence and could not be made ground for securing his acquittal.
The evidence of the prosecution is very convincing and the witnesses had no enmity or grudge or motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. No doubt the recovery of counterfeit currency notes was witnessed by the police officials but they are as good witnesses as private and no legal bar has been imposed upon them to become witnesses of recovery. The police officials are as good witnesses as any other witness and unless any malafide is established against them, their deposition cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that they belong to the police department. In this respect case of Muhammad Nasim us. The State (1992 SCM R 1617) can be referred with advantage. The submission of the learned appellant's counsel that the mandatory provisions of Section .103 Cr.P.C. have been violated and the noncompliance of his invioble rule has rendered the prosecution story open to serious, is not tenable. The mere assertion of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case, without a positive attempt on his part to substantiate the same, is of no consequence.
10. As regards quantum of sentence, I find that case of the appellant falls within the purview of Section 489(c) PPC and not 489(b) PPC. The sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. The same is reduced from five years R.I. to 4 years R.I. The amount of fine is also reduced from Rs, 50,000/- to Rs, 30,000/- or in default to undergo S.I. for one year. Benefit of Section 382-B shall remain available to the appellant. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.