CODE: 1504

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2019

DAVID APPELLANT
v.
U.T., CHANDIGARH RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND

HARYANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Submitted by:
Virinda (1504)

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………..……………………3

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………………4

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………………………………6

Statement of
Facts……………………………………………………………………………...7

Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………………………….8

Summary of
Arguments………………………………………………………………………..9

Arguments Advanced

1. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code,
1860………………………………………………………………………………..i

2. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 489B, 489C, and 489E of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860………………………………………………………………………
iv

3. That the present appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed with costs…………………
viii

Prayer...………………………………………………………………………………………10

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R All India Reporter

AP Andhra Pradesh

Art. Article

Bom Bombay

CLT Cuttuck Law Times

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honorable

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

LW Law Weekly

M.P Madhya Pradesh

Mad Madras

Mys Mysore

Ori Orissa

P. Page

Pat Patna

S.C. Supreme Court

3
 S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports

v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATIONS

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

BOOKS AND DIGESTS

 KD Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (6th Ed. 2009)

 KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2016)

 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (32nd Ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths,
2011)

 Justice A.K. Thomas, ‘The Indian Penal Code’ 33rd Ed., LexisNexis (2016)
 Dr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, ‘The Law of Evidence’ 24th Ed., LexisNexis (2016)
 B.M. Prasad, ‘The Code of Criminal Procedure’ 20th Ed., LexisNexis (2016)
 Modi, ‘Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology’ 25th Ed. Lexis Nexis (2016)

TABLE OF CASES

A. Pareed Pillai v. State (1973) SC 326.

Abdul Gaffar v. State, 2019(2) ALJ 384

Abdul Kuddus Mustaq Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra, 2019ALLMR(Cri)4130

Haider Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal C.R.A. 726 of 2016

Jayprakash v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841 and 1842 of 2019

4
Rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi and Ors. (1999) SC 1216

Rajesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019CriLJ4852.

S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar 2001(10) TMI 1150.

Sandeep Shrivasava and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh

State v. K. Narasimhachary, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41

State v. Thangaraj, Crl. A. No. 104 of 2010

Subir Dutta v. State of Tripura, 2013(5)GLT607

T Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent has approached the Hon’ble High Court, Punjab
and Haryana under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as
hereunder:

Section 374 – Appeals from convictions.

(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original
criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions
Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for
more than seven years 2 has been passed against him or against any other person
convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2), any person,-
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge
or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under
section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

6
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. David is a Foreign National and is a student of 2 nd year in M.A. History at Panjab

University, Chandigarh.
2. On 23/12/18 he went to CITCO Petrol Pump in Sector 9 of Chandigarh at 7:00 pm to
get his scooter refuelled for Rs 50. There he gave a hundred rupee currency note to
the salesman Rahul and demanded back the balance amount of Rs 50 from Rahul.
3. Rahul went inside and while on his way, he doubted the genuineness of the note as it
was a bit rough and coarse, therefore he showed the note to his Head Salesman,
Anish. They both minutely observed the currency note, comparing it with 30-40 more
currency notes of Rs 100.
4. In the meanwhile, the appellant started shouting at Rahul and Anish, rushed inside the
cabin, held Rahul by the collars and gave him a blow for not returning his balance
amount.
5. Rahul called for the police which arrived in about 25 minutes comprising of sub-
inspector Jai Singh.
6. On showing the Rs 100 note, police officials also agreed with sales staff that the note
appeared fake, therefore they frisked David and found 19 more similar currency notes
in his possession.
7. So, they took all the notes and arrested David. David was charged under sections 417,
420 read with sections 489A, B, C, D, and E of IPC and was made to stand trial at the
Trial Court in Chandigarh.
8. Before the Trial Court, all three witnesses i.e. Rahul, Anish and SI Jai Singh along
with Dr Satwant Singh, a noted expert from Government Forensic Science
Laboratory, Shimla, also deposed that after a minute examination lasting 4 hours, he
had reached to the conclusion that the notes are fake.

7
 9. David did not lead nay defence evidence but merely pleaded the plea of innocence in
his statement under section 313 of the CrPC. The Court found him guilty and imposed
a R.I. of 2 years and a fine of Rs 25,000.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The facts of the present case, give rise to the following issues, which this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to decide upon.

1. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 489B, 489C, and 489E of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. That the present appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed with costs.

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

4. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. That the Appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 489B, 489C, and 489E of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. That the present appeal is frivolous and must be dismissed with costs.

9
10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS

415, 417 AND 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

1.1 The appellant is guilty of cheating under Section 415.

“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.”1
From the above-mentioned definition, some of the basic elements of cheating are as
follows-
Fraudulently  
The act should either be fraudulent or dishonest to be termed as under the offence of
cheating. The term ‘fraudulently' is defined under Section 252 of the IPC as follows:
“A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to
defraud but not otherwise.” 3
In the pertinent case, the appellant intended to pay for petrol worth rupees 50, by
attempting to use a fake 100 rupees note. Furthermore, he also insisted on receiving
50 rupees from the petrol pump employee as balance amount from his 100 rupees
note. The intention to defraud is apparent from the appellant’s conduct as he
attempted to swindle the petrol pump.
Acting dishonestly
The intention of the wrongdoer in every criminal offence is of great importance.
Therefore, in cheating, also the person who commits the offence should act
dishonestly. The term ‘dishonesty' is defined under Section 24 of the IPC.

1
Section 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2
Section 25, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, 2019 (109) ACC 176

i
 “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or
wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.4
The dishonest intention of the appellant is apparent, where in the event of the
appellant’s success in passing off the fake 100 rupees note, he would have caused a
wrongful gain worth 100 rupees to himself, and a wrongful loss worth 100 rupees to
the petrol pump employees.
Deceive
The accused must deceive the person in such a way that he is induced to deliver any
property or gives consent to the accused to retain a property that he possesses. Also, it
is very important to note down here that the deception should be with a dishonest or
fraudulent intention.5 The appellant attempted to deceive by inducing Rahul to sell
petrol to him with a dishonest and fraudulent intention to never ethically pay for the
petrol.

It is humbly submitted that all the elements of cheating specified under Section 415
should be connected to each other in order to make an offence of cheating. The
Supreme Court very clearly held that the crux of the offence of cheating is the
intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation. The nature of the
transaction is irrelevant, which would become decisive in discerning whether there
was the commission of an offence or not. 6 The Apex Court in a case also held that in
order to convict a person under the offence of cheating there should be the pre-
existing fraudulent or dishonest intention of the accused from the beginning.7

It is clear from the above submissions that the appellant is indeed guilty of cheating
under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code.

1.2 The appellant is liable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code
“Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”8

4
Section 24, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5
A. Pareed Pillai v State (1973) SC 326.
6
Rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi and Ors. (1999) SC 1216; Sandeep Shrivasava and Ors. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh; Rajesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019CriLJ4852.
7
S.W. Palanitkar V. State of Bihar 2001(10) TMI 1150.
8
Section 417, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ii
Imprisonment depends upon the cheating and quantum of the act. If the act is grave,
imprisonment and fine, both can be awarded.

In the pertinent case, the act and conduct of the appellant clearly qualifies as cheating
as defined under section 415 of the code, and thus the punishment awarded to the
appellant by the Trial Court is apt and must be upheld.

iii
 2. THAT THE APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS
489B, 489C, AND 489E OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

It is pertinent to note the meaning of the term “counterfeit”, as defined under section
28 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
“A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing,
intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be
likely that deception will thereby be practised.
[Explanation 1.—It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be
exact.
Explanation 2.—When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the
resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed,
until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the
other thing intended by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to
be likely that deception would thereby be practised.]”
The facts of the present case are that the Appellant presented a fake 100 rupee note at
the CIDCO petrol pump in Sector 9, Chandigarh. The Petrol pump employees
compared the bill with 30-40 other original bills, confirming the veracity of their
claim that the appellant’s note was a knock-off. Moreover, the reporting duty officer
also confirmed that the note was a fake/counterfeit note.
The facts of the present case are similar to that of Haider Ali Khan v. State of West
Bengal9:
“Analysis of their (prosecution witness) evidence would show that a person had come
to the shop of P.W. 1 and had wanted to purchase 5 packets of cigarettes. P.W. 1
handed over the cigarette packets and claimed Rs. 250/- as sale price. The person
handed over 3 currency notes which were suspected to be fake. Police was intimated
and the said individual was apprehended from the spot. P.W. 8 is the police officer
who came to the spot to investigate the crime. He arrested the appellant from the
spot. Upon search, one piece of Rs. 500/- each and 5 pieces of currency notes of Rs.
100/- each suspected to be fake were recovered from his possession. Hence,
conviction of the appellant under section 489B, 489C and 489E of the Indian Penal
Code is established beyond doubt.”

9
C.R.A. 726 of 2016

iv
 The conviction of the appellant under Section 489B, 489C, and 489E in the
aforementioned case, was thus established beyond doubt.

It is humbly submitted that the appellant is guilty of all charges regarding

counterfeiting of notes, as follows:

2.1 The appellant is guilty of having used a counterfeit currency note as a genuine
note.
“Section 489B: Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.
Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in
or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished
with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
It is humbly submitted that the appellant had knowledge of the fact that his note was
not genuine, which is supported by his impatience to leave the petrol pump as soon as
he can, even assaulting the petrol pump employee in the process. Furthermore, 19
more similar fake notes were found in his possession, pointing towards the fact that
this was not a co-incidence.
The courts have affirmed this in a plethora of judgments.10
2.2 The appellant is guilty of possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes or
bank-notes.
“Section 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.”
For making out the offence under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code, the
prosecution is required to prove that the accused must know or had reason to believe
that the currency notes are counterfeit and that he intended to use them as genuine or
that those may be used as genuine. This fact is not required to be proved by direct
10
Abdul Gaffar v. State, 2019(2) ALJ 384; Jayprakash v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Appeal Nos. 1841 and
1842 of 2019

v
 evidence. When the accused is found in possession of large quantity of counterfeit
currency notes and when he failed to come up with an explanation that he came in
possession of such counterfeit currency notes innocently or that he did not have any
intention of using those currency notes, then intention of the accused to use the
counterfeit currency notes as genuine can be inferred.11
It is humbly submitted that the appellant did attempt to pass of a fake note as a
genuine one, and upon being frisked, revealed 19 such similar fake notes, in the
presence of witnesses, Rahul, Anish and Jai Singh. The knowledge, intention and
action of using the fake notes were apparent in the appellant’s conduct.
2.3 The appellant is guilty of using documents resembling currency notes or bank
notes.
“Section 489E: Making or using documents resembling currency-notes or bank-
notes:
1[(1) Whoever makes, or causes to be made, or uses for any purpose whatsoever, or
delivers to any person, any document purporting to be, or in any way resembling, or
so nearly resembling as to be calculated to deceive, any currency-note or bank-note
shall be punished with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.
(2) If any person, whose name appears on a document the making of which is an
offence under sub-section (1), refuses, without lawful excuse, to disclose to a police-
officer on being so required the name and address of the person by whom it was
printed or otherwise made, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to two
hundred rupees.
(3) Where the name of any person appears on any document in respect of which any
person is charged with an offence under sub- section (1) or on any other document
used or distributed in connection with that document it may, until the contrary is
proved, be presumed that that person caused the document to be made.”
The facts of the present case are similar to that of Subir Dutta v. State of Tripura,12
where the learned Judge notes:
“There is nothing in law that a police personal cannot be a witness of a fact. While
the Home Guard and SB staff detained the accused appellant with the fake currency
notes, they were natural witnesses of the occurrence and there is nothing to disbelieve
their testimony in the given facts and circumstances of the case. On search of the
11
Abdul Kuddus Mustaq Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2019ALLMR(Cri)4130
12
2013(5)GLT607

vi
 accused’s body total 14 numbers of fake currency notes were seized. Furthermore,
the I.O. in course of investigation sent those currency notes to the SFSL13 for
examination and opinion and the report of the SFSL was collected which shows that
all those seized currency notes were fake. Defence did not challenge that report and
the report may be considered under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. since it is a report of
Government scientific experts. All the ingredients of offence punishable under Section
489E of IPC have been proved with sufficient evidence, and hence the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence shall be maintained.
It is clear by the comparison of the two cases that the evidence against the appellant is
sufficient to fulfil the criteria for culpability under Section 489E of the Indian Penal
Code. Akin to the aforementioned case, in the pertinent case too, the note used by the
appellant was found to be fake by all the witnesses. It was also found to be fake upon
tests conducted by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Shimla. Section 293 of
Cr.P.C. prescribes provision in respect of acceptance of Government Scientific
Experts reports. Sub-Section (4) of Section 293 prescribes that report submitted by
Director of SFSL can be accepted as an expert evidence even without examination of
the scientific experts.14

The object of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Sections 489A to 489E is not only
to protect the economy of the country but also to provide adequate protection to currency,
notes and bank-notes. The manifest purpose of the provision is to protect people from being
deceived or cheated by ensuring that a person accepting a currency-note is given a genuine
currency which can be exchanged for goods or services and not a worthless piece of paper
which will bring him nothing in return, it being a counterfeit or a forged currency-note.15

It is thus humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court that the convictions under sections 489B,
489C, and 489E be upheld.

3. THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND MUST BE DISMISSED

WITH COSTS.

13
State Forensic Science Laboraty, India
14
Ibid at 10.
15
Ibid at 10.

vii
 3.1 The appellant has no grounds to appeal his conviction.
The word “appeal” has not been defined in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
however, it can be described as the judicial examination of a decision, given by a
lower court, by a higher court. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines appeal as “a
legal proceeding by which a case is brought before a higher court for review of the
decision of a lower court”.16
It needs to be pointed out that except for the statutory provisions laid down by CrPC
or any other law which is in force, an appeal cannot lie from any judgment or an order
of a criminal court.17 Thus, there is no vested right to appeal as such as even the first
appeal will be subjected to statutory limitations. The justification behind this principle
is that the courts which try a case are competent enough with the presumption that the
trial has been conducted fairly. 
The law provides a person who has been convicted of a crime to appeal to the
Supreme Court or the High Court or the Sessions Court as per the circumstances. 18 In
the case of Arun Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh19, the Honourable Supreme Court
held that if the High Court found that the view taken by the Sessions Judge to convict
the appellants was manifestly wrong, moreover, it even led to miscarriage of justice,
therefore, the High Court was correct in setting aside this conviction and acquitting
them.
It is humbly submitted, the appellant is patently guilty of the crimes he has been
charged with, and there has been no miscarriage of justice by his conviction by the
trial court.
3.2 The appellate court must not interfere with the trial court’s decision unless there
are extenuating circumstances, illegality etc.
It was held in the case of Samim Sk. and Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal, “the
Trial Court has imposed a term sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with
fine with default clause applying its discretion as the question of sentence is
absolutely the matter of discretion to be applied by the Trial Court. Now, the
Appellate Court can consider with reference to the fact whether there are any
extenuating circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime

16
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appeal, visited on 29 February 2020.
17
Section 372, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
18
Section 374, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
19
AIR 1989 SC 1445

viii
 otherwise it should not interfere unless there is strong reason and if the sentence is
grossly less or inadequate or excessive.20”
It is clear from the facts of the present case that there are no new extenuating
circumstances that warrant the need of an appeal, and the sentence passed by the Trial
Court is neither inadequate or excessive.
The courts have time and again maintained that “if the evaluation of the evidence and
the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity
and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and
plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of conviction if another view is
possible. Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of
the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of
conviction is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.”21

It is humbly submitted that the present appeal is frivolous in nature, and that the findings
recorded by the Trial Court after considering testimonies from witnesses, examination report
by the State Forensic Science Laboratories is free from any illegality or perversity. It is
humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court to set aside this appeal with costs as it only
endeavours to waste the Hon’ble Court’s valuable time.

20
C.R.A. 72 of 2017
21
State vs. Thangaraj, Crl. A. No. 104 of 2010; State v. K. Narasimhachary, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 41; T
Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401

ix
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, the counsel for the prosecution humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to kindly
hold and adjudge:

1. That the appellant is guilty of cheating under section 415 and 417 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. That the appellant is guilty under sections 489B, 489C and 389E of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. That the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed with costs.

And/or pass any other order that it may deem fit in light of equity, justice & good conscience.

and for this act of kindness, the counsel, as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

S/d.
Counsel for the Respondent
date:_____________

10