No preferential treatment on account of gender: Delhi Court sends woman, accomplice to jail in fake currency case

A convict can’t claim preferential treatment on account of her gender, a Delhi Court observed while awarding a five-year jail term to a 40-year-old woman and her accomplice for dealing in fake Indian currency notes (FICN) in 2016.

Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana rejected their plea of probation, underlining that FICN was a “threat to the economic stability” of the country.

Besides, the judge did not come across any plausible reasons to treat the woman convict on a “separate pedestal merely on account of her gender”.

The defence counsel had sought leniency saying she was a woman, but the Court held,

“Convict Neetu despite being a woman has voluntarily chosen to associate herself with nefarious criminal activities and now she cannot claim any preferential treatment on account of her gender. The partners in sin, who lay equal stakes in profit, cannot now disassociate themselves while reaping the harvest of their sins.”

Both convicts were accordingly awarded a five-year jail term under Section 498B (using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes) and a one-year term under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. They were also saddled with a fine of ₹35,000 each.

They were intercepted in Delhi by a police team on October 2, 2016, following which 300 fake currency notes of ₹1,000 denomination - 297 high quality counterfeit notes and the remaining counterfeit notes - were recovered.

During the trial, the defence counsel had raised suspicion in the manner of investigation to seek acquittal of the two accused persons.

It came on record that members of the police party had travelled in a vehicle, but the defence lawyers argued that for 11 people - including the police team and two accused - to travel in a “Gypsy” was not possible.

The Court said that it was not uncommon to refer to a police vehicle as “gypsy” in the common lingua franca. Interestingly, it further noted,

“It is a matter of common knowledge that we Indians are very accommodative in nature and it is not uncommon for passengers travelling together to make adjustments with the fellow passengers. It is though difficult but not virtually impossible for 11 passengers to travel in a vehicle designed to carry only 7 passengers.”

On the argument that they were apprehended from a bustling place but no public witness was brought to testify, Judge Rana said,

“It is a matter of common knowledge that members of general public, for obvious reasons, these days are reluctant to come forward and testify.”

The counter claims were, therefore, rejected and both the accused were convicted.

Additional Public Prosecutor Irfan Ahmed argued for State.

Advocate MK Pervez appeared for convict Salim Sheikh and Advocate Sanjeev Bhardwaj represented convict Neetu.

[Read Order]