Sardar Masih (30) and Younas Masih (20) had gone to the shop of Mahmood Ali in Gojra Town and made some purchases 5/6 days prior to 8-9-1986. Each of them had given a 100 rupees note to Mehmood Ali. He noted that both the notes contained the same numbers, i.e. UJ/2-834319. Feeling suspicion, he enquired from both of them. They asserted that the notes were not counterfeit and that they had received the same from Emanual Masih and Pitras Masih of Chak No.424/J.B. And that they were responsible for the notes to be ungenuine. Mahmood showed the notes to Sheikh Muhammad Siddique and Shaukat Ali, shop-keepers. The), told him that the notes were counterfeit.
Mahmood Ali proceeded to the police station to lodge the report. Muhammad Yaqub, S.I. Met him on the way and recorded his statement Exh. P.A. On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded at the police station. The notes produced by Mahmood Ahmad, P.W., were taken into possession by Muhammad Yaqub, S.I. Muhammad Yaqub during investigation arrested Sardar Masih, Younas Masih Emanual Masih and Pitras Masih and submitted challan against them to the Court,
2. Statements of five P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
Mahmood Ali, who had lodged the F.I.R., appeared as P.W.1 and stated that Sardar Masih and Younas Masih after having made purchases from him had given him notes P.1 and P.2 which were counterfeit. He also stated that he had shown the notes to Sheikh Muhammad Siddique, who was President of the Karyana Merchant Association and P.W. Shaukat. During cross-examination, he denied that Shaukat named by him as P.W. Was his real brother. He, however, admitted that he had a brother named Shaukat. He denied the suggestion that he and his brother had some dispute with Younas Masih about (Lane- Dane) and that they had snatched his donkey cart also, for that. He denied the suggestion that he had got the case registered falsely.
Muhammad Sardar, P.W.3, corroborated the statement made by Mahmood, stating that Sardar Masih and Younas Masih in his presence had given notes P.1 and P.2 to Mahmood Ali, which were counterfeit. During cross---examination, he also denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement.
Muhammad Siddique, who appeared as P.W.2,'also corroborated the statement made by Mahmood Ali, P.W.1.
Muhammad Yaqub S.I., who had registered the case and submitted the challan after completion of the investigation, appeared as P.W.5 and gave the details of investigation. During cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that he had fabricated the case and falsely challaned the appellants. Expert opinion from the State Bank about the notes to be counterfeit was also received.
3. All the accused during their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. They examined nobody in defence. However, Younas Masih made statement in his own defence on oath, during which he stated that he had a dispute of some money with Mahmood and that Mahmood involved him falsely in the case on that account.
4. The learned trial Judge, vide judgment dated 16-2-1989, convicted Sardar Masih and Younas Masih under section 489-B/34, P.P.C. And sentenced each of them to undergo five years' R.I. Each plus to a Fine of Rs.500 each or in default of the payment of fine to undergo five months' S.I. Each.
Pitras Masih and Emanual Masih were acquitted vide the same order.
5. The convicts have filed the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants after taking me through the evidence criticised the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants and that the conviction of the appellants was based on erroneous appreciation of the evidence.
6. The learned State counsel has defended the judgment of the trial Court.
7. In spite of lengthy cross-examination, the defence failed to bring anything on record to show that the complainant or any of the witnesses was inimical towards any of the appellants in any manner.
All such suggestions put to the witnesses were denied by them. It is not an ordinary case of theft or assault where the stolen property can be planted or injuries can be fabricated. It is a case of counterfeit currency. It cannot be believed that the complainant would have procured two counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100 each just in order to involve the appellants. Moreover, the complainant had not got the case registered against the appellants on the very first day he had found that the appellants had given him notes, which were not of genuine currency. He had been making inquiries and had lodged the report only after being fully convinced. Had he any malicious intention, he would have lodged the F.I.R. On the very first day.
After having considered all aspect of the evidence, I am convinced that no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. The conviction of the appellants under section 489-B/34, P.P.C. Is, therefore, maintained.
However, the sentence of five years' R.I. Is reduced to four years' R.I. The sentence of the fine is maintained. They shall be given the benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. As well.