Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Govinda Shetty vs State Of Karnataka By Yeshwanthpur Ps on 21 November, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2219/2006
BETWEEN:
RAMESH
S/O GOVINDA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC : ENGINEER
R/AT NEAR CORPORATER
SHIVANNA'S HOUSE
BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI YOUNOUS ALIKHAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YESHWANTHPUR P.S.
BANGALORE, REP. BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B T VENKATESH, SPP-II)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 CR.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2006 PASSED BY XXXV
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE
(SPECIAL COURT TO TRY FAKE STAMP PAPER CASES),
BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.52/2005, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION. 259 IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO
R.I. FOR 5 YEARS & PAY FINE OF Rs.1,00,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO
UNDERGO R.I. FOR ONE YEAR, FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 259 IPC.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused no.1) and accused no.2 to 5 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 201 r/w 120-B IPC.
2. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused no.2 to 5 of offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 201 and also 120-B IPC (substantive offence).
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused no.1 of offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 257, 258, 201 and also 120-B IPC (substantive offence). The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 259 IPC.
3. The learned State Public Prosecutor would submit that the State has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal of accused for aforestated offences.
4. Therefore, the point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:
3
Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no.1 was found in possession of counterfeit adhesive stamps of face value of Rs.500/- each worth Rs.15 Lakhs with the knowledge and reasons to believe that they were counterfeit of stamps issued by the Government intending to use or dispose of the same as genuine stamps, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 259 IPC ?
5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW's.1 to 13 and documents marked as per Ex.P.1 to P.16.
6. PW.8-Shivanna was working as the Police Inspector of Yeshwanthpur Police Station. PW.8 has deposed; that on 27.11.2002 at about 2.00 p.m., when he was in Yeshwanthpur Police Station, Bangalore, he received credible information that some person is coming towards Yeshwanthpur Railway Station Circle and he is carrying fake stamps for the purpose of sale. PW.8 secured two panchas and proceeded towards Railway Station and they were 4 waiting near that place. A person (accused no.1) came on a motorcycle. The police inspector intercepted the motorcycle and apprehended accused no.1 and searched his motorcycle. The accused took out a plastic cover from the purse which was fixed to the upper portion of petrol tank of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.CKH-5655 which accused no.1 was riding. On examination, PW.8 found that bag contained 200 sheets of adhesive counterfeit stamps of Rs.500/- denomination.
PW.8 at the glance of stamps found that they were not genuine. PW.8 seized stamp papers and prepared mahazar as per Ex.P1. The stamp papers were sealed in two separate covers. The accused was arrested and brought to police station and a case was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 258, 259, 260, 261, 420, 465, 468 & 471 IPC.
The cross-examination of PW.8 is concentrated on receipt of credible information. An unsuccessful attempt has been made to discredit his evidence for his failure to record the credible information.
5
The law is fairly well settled that investigation officer need not record credible information lest the purpose of receiving credible information would be frustrated. PW.8 after apprehending the accused with fake stamp papers and after bringing him to police station has registered the first information. The circumstances under which PW.8 received credible information and arrested the accused would clearly demonstrate that it was a case of exigency. PW.8 could not have spent his time for registering the first information against unknown persons. After receipt of credible information, the first and foremost duty of PW.8 was to reach the place of incident. Therefore, attempt made by the accused to discredit the evidence of PW.8 on this ground, cannot be accepted.
The evidence of PW.8 is sought to be discarded on the ground that he had failed to obtain the signatures of panch witnesses on each of the stamp papers. In my considered opinion such procedure is not warranted. The panchanama or mahazar relating to seizure of incriminating articles is 6 prepared as a contemporaneous record to corroborate the seizure of incriminating articles.
7. PW.9-Chandrashekaraiah was working as a Police Constable of Yeshwanthpur P.S. His evidence relates to apprehension of accused no.2 who has been acquitted.
8. The evidence of PW.10-C.Lakshmaiah relates to delivery of first information to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.00 a.m., on 28.11.2002.
It is true that panch witnesses namely PW.1- B.Narayanappa, PW.2-Rajeshwari, PW.4-Balakrishna have not supported the case of prosecution.
9. In a decision reported in 2002 SCC (Crl) 1024 (in the case of Mohamed Aslam -vs- State of Maharashtra) the Supreme Court has held:
"Evidence of Police Officer effecting recovery could not stand vitiated by reason of pancha witness supporting the evidence turning hostile to the case of prosecution."
Therefore, the panch witnesses turning hostile to the case of prosecution cannot be a ground to discredit the evidence of Police Officer.
7
Above all, the evidence of PW.8 is supported by seizure of counterfeit stamp papers worth Rs.15 Lakhs. It is difficult to conceive that PW.8 had planted these counterfeit stamp papers to foist a case against accused no.1 with whom he had no animosity or grudge.
During cross-examination of PW.8 it was suggested to him that in order to prevent accused no.1 from contesting for elections for Corporation of City of Bangalore, PW.8 apprehended accused no.1 from his house and PW.8 brought motorcycle from his house.
The order sheet maintained by the Committal Magistrate would reveal: when the accused was produced before the Committal Magistrate, he had not stated that he was apprehended from his house. He had not stated that he was brought to police station from his house. He had not stated that PW.8 had brought motorcycle from the house of accused. Therefore, the contention of the accused that he was not apprehended near Yeshwanthpura Railway station is false. The cross-examination of PW.8 does not indicate that PW.8 knew the residential address of accused no.1 8 before he was apprehended. It is difficult to believe that PW.8 had planted fake stamp papers of face value of Rs.15,00,000/- (200 sheets, each sheet containing 15 stamp papers of face value of Rs.500/-) to foist a case against accused.
11. The report of the General Manager of India Security Press, Nashik Road, Nashik (marked as per Ex.P16) would reveal that, seized stamp papers in the instant case were not printed by the India Security Press and they are counterfeit stamps.
12. The accused was found in possession of counterfeit adhesive stamps of face value of Rs.500/- each worth Rs.15 Lakhs. He has not offered any explanation for being in possession of counterfeit adhesive stamps. Therefore, learned trial judge has rightly held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 259 IPC.
13. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Np/- JUDGE