Delhi High Court
State Nct Of Delhi vs Umesh Sharma on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:17.06.2025
+ CRL.L.P. 176/2018 & CRL.M.A. 7497/2018
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
versus
UMESH SHARMA .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.
SI Udai Singh, PS Saket.
For the Respondent : Ms. Seema Mishra, Adv.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
CRL.M.A. 7497/2018 (condonation of delay of 127 days in filing the
present leave petition)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the delay in filing the present petition is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 176/2018
3. The present petition has been filed under Section 378 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 1 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) seeking grant of leave to
challenge the judgment dated 19.11.2016 (hereafter ‘the impugned
judgment’), in Sessions Case No. 64/2015 arising out of FIR No.
933/2014, registered at Police Station Saket, whereby the learned Trial
Court acquitted the accused/ respondent for the offence under Section
489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
4. The brief facts are that on the intervening night of
08/09.12.2014, the police while on patrolling duty reached Som Bazar
Market, Pushp Vihar, wherein they found a number of people gathered
around.
5. It is alleged that on 08.12.2024 at around 10:00 p.m. one person
namely Mohd. Imran had come to the shop of the complainant to
purchase a piece of cloth for a suit, thereafter, he handed over a
currency note of ₹1,000/- to the complainant.
6. It is further alleged that on checking the said currency note it
was found to be fake. When the complainant asked Mohd. Imran
regarding this aspect, he ran away from the spot, whereafter, with the
help of the other people present the complainant apprehended him.
7. Upon conducting a search four more currency notes of ₹1,000/-
were recovered from Mohd. Imran. The said currency notes also
appeared to be fake. Pursuant to the statement of the complainant, the
police registered FIR No. 933/2014 under Sections 489B/489C of the
IPC.
8. The police thereafter arrested Mohd. Imran, who in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 2 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
statement disclosed that he used to get these currency notes from the
accused/respondent. On the basis of his disclosure statement the police
arrested the accused/respondent and from his right pant pocket 17
currency notes of ₹1,000/- were recovered.
9. The accused/respondent in his statement disclosed that he used
to get these counterfeit currency notes from one person namely Faizul
who is a resident of West Bengal.
10. On completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet
under Sections 489B/489C of the IPC. The learned Trial Court framed
charges against the accused/respondent under Section 489C of the IPC
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. The accused/respondent in his statement under Section 313 of
the CrPC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case
by one Lady Kaushalya, who started blackmailing him as he wanted to
end the relationship with her. The learned Trial Court noted that as per
the arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/F Kaushalya is stated to be the
wife of the accused/respondent.
12. The learned Trial Court, noting the contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the
accused/respondent by the impugned judgment.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the
accused/respondent was apprehended by the police on the pointing of
Mohd. Imran who had specifically disclosed that the fake currency
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 3 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
notes were supplied to him by the accused/respondent.
14. He submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate
the fact that upon conducting a formal search of the
accused/respondent, 17 fake currency notes of ₹1,000/- each were
recovered from him.
15. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in not
considering the fact that the accused/respondent was previously
involved in another case regarding fake currency notes and had
disclosed that the currency notes were supplied to him by one person
namely Faizul.
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/respondent
vehemently opposed the arguments as raised by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
17. She submitted that there were material contradictions in the
statements made by the prosecution witnesses. She further submitted
that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence which establish a
link between Mohd. Imran and the accused/respondent.
18. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
Analysis
19. It is trite law that this Court must exercise caution and should
only interfere in an appeal against acquittal where there are substantial
and compelling reasons to do so. At the stage of grant of leave to
appeal, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 4 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
out in favour of the appellant or if such arguable points have been
raised which would merit interference. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar: (2008) 9 SCC
475 held as under:
“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal
by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no
appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is
aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of
Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by
sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an
appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court
only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the
application filed under sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the
Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether
requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court
must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has
been made out or arguable points have been raised and not
whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of
universal application that each and every petition seeking leave
to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a
trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every
appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also
cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter
into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave
observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
court could not be said to b “perverse” and, hence, no leave
should be granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment had
acquitted the accused/ respondent for the said offences on the ground
that there were material contradictions in the depositions made by the
prosecution witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 5 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
21. PW-8, Investigating Officer Ravi Shankar Tyagi deposed that
the Mohd. Imran made a disclosure statement that the
accused/respondent used to meet him near Shiv Shakti Public School
in Sangam Vihar and supply fake currency notes. He further deposed
that thereafter Mohd. Imran led the police to the said location,
wherein, the accused/respondent was standing near the school and on
being identified by Mohd. Imran was thereafter arrested. Upon
conducting a formal search 17 fake currency notes of ₹1,000/- each
were recovered at his instance.
22. PW-1, Constable Sandeep deposed that after recording the
disclosure statement, Mohd. Imran made a phone call to the
accused/respondent and asked him to deliver fake currency notes to
him. After reaching the said location, the police apprehended the
accused/respondent.
23. The learned Trial Court noted that the accused/respondent was
apprehended from the main gate of the school at around 1:30 a.m. on
the intervening night of 08/09.12.2014. Constable Sandeep stated that
the accused/respondent was called at the location by a phone call.
However, in the statement made by Investigating Officer Ravi
Shankar Tyagi nowhere has he mentioned that the accused/respondent
was called near the school by a phone call.
24. It was further noted by the learned Trial Court that in order to
establish a link between Mohd. Imran and the accused/respondent the
prosecution has neither placed the call details on record nor the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 6 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
alleged mobile phone used to call the accused/respondent been seized.
25. The prosecution is seeking conviction of the respondent on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and the alleged
recovery of fake currency from the respondent.
26. As noted above, the disclosure of the co-accused is not
supported with any corroborative material. The alleged recovery of the
fake currency from the respondent is also not supported with any
independent witness. There are also contradictions in the statements
made by PW-1 and PW-8, being Constable Sandeep and Investigating
Officer Ravi Shankar Tyagi respectively, in regard to the manner in
which the respondent was apprehended near Shiv Shakti Public
School.
27. The learned Trial Court rightly noted that no CDR has been
placed on record in order to corroborate the prosecution version.
28. It is also relevant to note that in order to convict any accused
under Section 489C of the IPC, the prosecution has to establish that
the accused had intention to use such fake currency notes by
portraying them to be genuine. Section 489C of the IPC reads as
under:
489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or
bank-notes.–Whoever has in his possession any forged or
counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason
to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use
the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
29. Even if it is to be presumed that the fake currency notes were
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 7 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
recovered from the respondent, in the absence of any material to show
that the same were meant to be used as genuine, no order of conviction
can be passed. This Court, in the case of Akil v. State (NCT of Delhi)
: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3242, had observed as under :
“So also possessing or even intending to use any forged or
counterfeit currency is not sufficient to make out the commission
of offence under Section 489C, in absence of mens rea.
Therefore, to convict an accused under Section 489C,
possession, knowledge of notes being counterfeit and intention to
use as such, are the essential ingredients but in the present case
prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to prove that
appellants had knowledge of the notes being counterfeit and/or
had an intention to use them as genuine.”
30. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there are
material contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution
witnesses in regard to the manner in which the respondent was
arrested and the prosecution has failed to establish a link between
Mohd. Imran and the respondent.
31. The doubt, thus, has been created in regard to alleged recovery
of 17 fake currency notes from the respondent and the benefit of the
same cannot be denied to the respondent. Moreover, as noted above,
even if it is to be presumed that the fake currency notes were in fact
recovered from the respondent, in the absence of the prosecution to
establish the intention of the respondent to use the fake currency notes
as genuine, no order of conviction can be passed.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 8 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
learned Trial Court and the State has not been able to establish a prima
facie case in its favour and no credible ground has been raised to
accede to the State’s request to grant leave to appeal in the present
case.
33. The leave petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications if any also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 17, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 176/2018 Page 9 of 9
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37