Kerala High Court
Viswanathan, C.No.678 vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 1652 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 1394/2010 OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,TRIVANDRUM
CP 17/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -
III,TRIVANDRUM
APPELLANT/S:
VISWANATHAN, C.NO.678
BY ADV SRI. M.G. SREEJITH ( STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.C.SEENA, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
======================================================
Crl.A.No. 1652 of 2013
=============================================================
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.1394 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is charge sheeted against the appellant and two others alleging offences punishable under Section 489(B) and 489 (C) read with 34 IPC. There were three accused persons originally, however, the 2 nd accused passed away in the pre-committal stage itself. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 3 faced trial before the Trial Court.
2. The prosecution case is that, the accused persons along with the 2nd accused (who is now no more), acting in furtherance of their common intention of possessing and using as genuine counterfeit notes, have obtained 70 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- from one Thankaswamy, -3- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013 hailing from Tamilnadu, (who was neither identified nor arrested), by payment of genuine notes amount to Rs.3,500/-. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have, thereafter, entrusted the said 70 counterfeit notes to the 1st accused, which was kept and possessed by him. Then 33 such counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- were transacted, along with genuine 100/- rupees notes on 23.01.2003 at 12.30 in the noon in the Attipra Branch of the Union Bank of India by attempting to deposit the same in account No.2323 by tendering pay-in-slip to PW1. Besides, 20 such counterfeit notes were transacted to PW8 as genuine notes. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons have transacted and possessed the counterfeit notes with the knowledge that the same are counterfeit notes and also with the intention to use them as genuine and hence committed the offences punishable under Section 489(B) and (C) read with 34 IPC.
-4-Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW14. Exts.P1 to P30 were also marked on the side of the prosecution. MO1 to MO44 were identified and marked as material objects. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Trial Court found that the appellant, who is the 1st accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 489(B) and (C) of IPC. He is convicted for the said offences. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 489(B) IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is directed to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. For the offence under Section 489(C) IPC the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. Sentences are directed to run concurrently. The 1 st accused was in custody for a period from 23.01.2003 to 07.04.2003 and also for a period from 26.05.2011 to -5- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013 31.10.2013. The said period was set off as per the impugned judgment. The 3rd accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the 1st accused filed this Crl.Appeal.
4. Heard Sri.M.G. Sreejith, the State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. This Crl.Appeal was filed through the Superintendent of Central Prison and it is a jail appeal. Hence, a State Brief lawyer was appointed to argue this matter on behalf of the appellant.
6. The trial court framed the following points for consideration:
i) Whether MO1 to MO44 currency notes involved in this case are counterfeit notes?
ii) Whether the prosecution had proved the recovery of MO1 to MO33 currency notes from the 1st accused Viswanathan?-6- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013
iii) Whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to connect the 1st accused with the remaining currency notes namely, MO34 to MO44?
iv) Whether the prosecution had adduced any evidence against the 3rd accused either independently or with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?
v) Whether the 1st accused has used and possessed MO1 to MO33 currency notes knowing or having reason to believe that the same are counterfeit notes, with the further intention to use as genuine?
vi) What offence is committed in the facts and circumstances of this case?
vii) Sentence?
7. Thereafter, the trial court considered all the points separately. As far as the first point is concerned the trial court found that it is only to be concluded that the currency notes involved in this Crime are counterfeit notes. The trial court relied on Ext.P13 report. There is nothing to interfere with that finding. As far as the second point framed by the trial court is concerned, after detailed discussion of the evidence available in this case and the exhibits produced, the trial court uphold the -7- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013 prosecution case and held that the prosecution has proved the recovery of MO1 to MO33 currency notes from the 1 st accused. This point is considered by the trial court in detail and thereafter concluded that the counterfeit notes were seized from the possession of the accused. As far as point No.3 is concerned, the same was also discussed by the trial court in detail. The other point framed by the trial court is whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to connect the 1 st accused with the remaining currency notes namely, MO34 to MO44. On this point, the trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove by adducing evidence to connect the same with the 1 st accused. Therefore, that point was found against the prosecution.
8. The fourth point considered by the trial court is about the involvement of the 3rd accused. That point was also considered in detail by the learned Judge and concluded based -8- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013 on the oral and documentary evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the offence against the 3rd accused. The fifth point framed by the trial court is whether the 1 st accused had used and possessed MO1 to MO33 currency notes knowing or having reason to believe that the same are counterfeit notes, with the further intention to use it as genuine. Based on the oral evidence of PWs1 and 2 the court found that the 1st accused has used and possessed MO1 to MO33 currency notes knowingfully that it is the counterfeit notes. Thereafter the trial court found that the 1st accused committed the offences under Section 489(B) and (C) IPC. Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced under Section.489(B) and (C) IPC.
9. Even though the counsel appearing for the appellant seriously argued that the evidence available is not enough to connect the appellant/1st accused, I am not in a position to disagree with the finding of the learned Judge. The trial court -9- Crl.A. No. 1652 of 2013 considered the matter in detail, perused the evidence and found that the 1st accused committed the offence. Moreover, this appeal is pending from 2013 onwards. The sentence was not suspended during the pendency. Therefore, the period of sentence is already undergone by the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant is already released from jail on 20.02.2016. In the light of the same, I think nothing survives in this case.
Therefore, this Crl.Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE das