S Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka By Ulsoor Gate ... on 2 March, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S Krishnamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka By Ulsoor Gate ... on 2 March, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE Ognd DAY OF MARCH 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAW-AD»  Q"  

CRL.A. NO. 1762 OI=_2':vOO5 '   'A 
C/W CRL.No.I849,/_2OO5".,, ~. «. '

BETWEEN;    "  
IN CRL.A No_.,I~~:7_62 OF...20£}5_',  "

1. S.KRISHNAEW..LJRTI-£.'r"," -.  

S/O C.M.SOMA--SU;\|D.ATRAM',a,, 
AGED ABOUT 35'v'EARS,    " 
R/AT,NO.11/B.,.,BI<R' NAGAR,  ; ~ '
SHAKTHI MAIN, RDA-D,'~.."_--.._V A *
CC'2_IME.ATO.RE, TAMIL. NA"DU'.'""

2. T.,M:AR,I,MU'TH.U,-E.' ..  
 TTTT  S,/O L "T1;'E"-PE-RIYASWAMY,
 AGED ABOUT  TEARS,
 * ADDRESS M,ENT:'ONED IN THE
' CHARGE"-«SH,E'ET 'N'O.173/7,
P3TAIPRAV_AS.HNAGARSANGANUR MAIN ROAD,
GANAPATHI POST, COIMBATORE,TAMILNADU.
  l?ERMANT--E.N«"i" ADDRESS R/O MANICHERY,
 j SHIVAGANGA DISTRICT & TALUK,TAMIL NADU.

--.3:,G.R-AJ,S/O CHOKKALINGAM,
"AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/AT NO183,
 ' -'A' BLOCI<,ARUMBAKAM, MMD COLONY,
 CHENNAI, TAMILNADU
 APPELLANT

_ (By Sri N V PRAKASH, ADV. FOR APPELLANT 1, Sri
§SHANKAR NAIK, ADV. FOR APPELLANT 2,Sr§ YOUNOUS ALI

  -~~*I<HAN & ASSOCIATES FOR APPELLANT 3)

Aaw



IQ

BETWEEN
IN CRE_.A No.18-49 OF 2005

T.MARIMUTHU,S/O LATE PERIYASWAMY,  
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/a NO.173/7, 
}AIPRAKASHNAGAR,SANG/-WUR MAI_f§]"'RO.A-D,"  
GANAPATHI POST, COIMBATORE,TAMIL_NA'DU..  '

..  _APPE.LE_«ANT " « 

(BY Sri YOUNOUS ALI KHAIN""&--A.SSfOCIATES, AD.v.",I
AND:        

THE STATE OFI<ARNATAI<A

BY ULSOOR GAT,E'P_OLIC'E,__ I 'V _

CCB H AND B--II,'OB.Ai\'GAE_ORE& " ~ " ,

NOW BY ,C.B.I A,€U_II,NEW DELHI- 

(REP BY LE'ARN'ED,.SPP._), 
   "   RESPONDENT

V. fCO"MM'OjN-'IN BOTH CASES)

(By SH,fg/;S,.'HE{SDEC-FOR' ASHOK HARANAHALLI, ADv.,)



 THES"E'..».A.PPEALS'FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C AGAINST
THE ';1uD,CT»IENTj-.DATED 'QB-04-05 PASSED BY THE ><><><v
ADDL  _& sv..I.(sPL"C_O'u"RT), CENTRAL PRISON PREMISES,
PARAPPANA-AVGRAHARA, BANGALORE, IN S.C.NO.667/O1-
COI\IvICTINS,TH'E ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 255,
 R/\I'V__12O¥'B~&..E>EC.256 OF IPC AND SENTENCING HIM

 ._T"O UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF
RS..,5B.,0OO,/A-'----I.D. TO UNDERGO R.I FOR 2 YEARS AND

S'_EN"F-Ei\iCx1i\.|tG.--'HIM TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7 YEARS AND TO

"PAY FI|\i'E'j_ OF RS.S0,000/- I.D TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 2

YEAR.S'FO'R THE OFFENCE P/U/S 259 R/W 120-8 OF IPC
AND FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120-B NO SEPARATE

 .. SENTENCE IS IMPOSED. THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN
 ,'C'ONCuRRENTLY, ETC.,

THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL

VZHEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOE_LOWING:--





JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the convicted"llacbused questioning the Judgment in S.C. No. o6--o4-2oo5 on the file of xxxv vAd'd»l--.-.Clt§»,'/ c_ix};'i"Iand sessgsergk Judge, Bangalore convicting then:-.Vfo'.r'_lt'he of'fe'n--c.e under Section 255 and 259 r.e"a~dpgwith Se'ct.igo'n__

2. Crl. A_ isvvlltilled by three appellants and the case has also preferred No. 1849 of 2088 questionigngp "crl.A. No. 1849 of 2008 doeslnowt '_su:rviye::AE'a's alrealdy the appellant No.2 in the first appeal_. it A it I h'ave...heard the learned counsel appearing for ' LethegAa"p4pel;larit..and also learned counsel Sr: Hegde appearing "onbehalfjoitrespondent -- CB1.

" In brief the material proposition on which the "~.VVapp'ellants were tried and convicted are:

S.Re\/anna, Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch H&R--II, who was authorised, commenced investigéation on 20--1G--2OU1 on the basis of the information that fake stamp papers were being.

Compound within the premises Tailéuig He secured presence of witnesses and"conduci;ed raid; on the Stamp Vendor shop, within tuh'e.._c'ompoVL:iiid',_,'fi if

5. During appeilant was in possession 'proceeding near Stall No. 171.; papers to PW10--

B.Ga,,n'gavn.an'iaiah,~n "Saaeii/anna and his subordinate Officersf' questioning he revealed his name aim" to justify the possession of the m'a:ter_ia!s%_ in l5a'g.... ____ Qn search they found stamp papers with ' no. receipti.reg_arding purchase from G,Raj of Chennai, who is "ia'p'pei|anv*t'j_ in this case. He revealed that they were se'|ii.nv1{;;«;_faVke stamp papers after counterfeiting.

6. Thus, they were taken in to custody and 208 sheets of stamp papers of dimension of Rs.5/-- marked as .3 M01 to 199 and sample of which at M02 were seized. Mahazar was prepared vide Ex.P4 and further inveystilgation revealed appellants in both these appeals were"*i-n'yVo.l_:ye'd_:Vin a pre--planed fraud to counterfeit Governrne.nt_:"sta:nj'p._papers and to sell the same as genuine lone,' ;

7. Further investigation» was pirobie yield several positive" resgo-l-tat.""establlshingv..connivance of appellants to commitiillollyepicey under Section 255 and 259 and they were detained it

8._ p-!.e:a~dVVed_ not guilty necessitating trial, duringlwhlch'p.ros.ecl§téo:n"examined in all 10 witnesses and received eyigdence documents and 28 material objects. the eyldence so brought on record the learned 1 appellants in these two appeals guilty of the offenllcels punishable under Section 255 r/w 120~»B and . ,7,_59.l*',a""\il.\l 120-8 IPC.

9. The learned trial Judge found appellants guilty 'of offences punishable under Section 255 and 259 r/w E' (3 Section 120-13 and sentenced them to RI for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.50,0GO/-- each. As they had already remand in custody no sentence is passed' under Section 256 r/w Section 12043 IPC. it appellants are in these appeals.

10. The learned counsel':

through the records and V.ev4_i'dence_J'to shovy possibility of falsity and "of SUCH standard to constitu't;e._"'pr'oc.iVt.'to thedcharge for the offence punishable 259 IPC. He subn1vi"ts'cvthua"t.lalplpeila'nts--.Vyvere~twai§en into custody on 23-07- 2001:"*._and judicial custody till 06-12-2002. ThereafVte--r_V%%t'ney -wereteleased on bail. But rearrested on 30*?'»od_§V2oV04 sE'ncce.__.t-hen they are in judicial custody. He ' .V.Vs'u-Vbnats'that' they have already undergone imprisonment for "more than years and they do not wish to pursue any further: action, but would be satisfied if this court would iyreconsider the nature of punishment imposed. an / forty Eeppe'll,ai1.ts 'i:o:_o|<,_. 0 the wealth. i-ie submits order regarding fine imposed by the trial Court needs no modification.

13. Keeping in mind what is urged I have eiiiamined the circumstances in which the appellants are_p'i'ac'ed.,::

14. The evidence on record is over.~..whe*imi«ng _:ai'i<i same is accepted by the trial :=.Cou_rtiLt;o'4A'ﬁnd' 5' Appellants on their own voliiiti-on halve not sc»'ug'fr;t:4to qjiiiestiors.

finding of guilt against them. 1T'h,ey.Vseel<"onl_y"modification of the order regardingVseii;teri.ce.;_~.iH"e.ri'ce;~ithere is no need to examine the finding an£.i.._ti*!e'reagso.n'i,.nvg"*.ofiithe trial Court by which they ha-\VreV_ Vbieen4v%Vconvi_cted. 1Ex.i"--«.V%SvoV5fart'._Vas.i.u~~'i'sentence is concerned no doubt has loeen.....proved against the appeilants. In iaw ' p"rescr.ib"es'ii.r;i*iaximum period of seven years for the offence .'pVu'nishapViie't§inder Section 255 and as also 259 IPC, Since both the 'offences are of simiiar nature triai Court was right A_i;n"'*~«i.mposing sentence, for one of the offence proved and Vigheid that for the offence punishabie under Section 259 IPC no separate sentence is necessary as it merges with the 9 first order. The learned triai Judge has imposed by the impugned order, the maximum sentence, but heﬁhas not assigned any specific reason for imposing suc.h._a_».s_en',ter;ce. The prescription of seven years imprison_m'e,nt:.A_i'n :Se'ction'=_ 255 IPC itself reads that it is is', L awardabie, ie., sentence may beV4'iess..or uptig. the seven years. Appeliants und'oiu.:|a't»ediyh, custody for a period of moretjhagn i V

16. In V the taking into consideration4't§;j§.,I,,1"'attendiiig circumsmnces, I am satisfied that ser'i'te[i;Ce'o«i'§i;mpr§sonme'n't~~imposed upon accused couid be miodifiied' imprisonment of six years have already ''und'ergo__ne.._ 9' '«...'~~'iThe totai number of days the appteiiapnts areV"'in.--..g'..u«diciai custody is six years two months i and these circumstances, the appeais stand disposed of. The conviction recorded -in S.C. No. 667/2001 dated 06-04-2005 on the file of xxxv Addi. City Civii and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is Confirmed. However, order §\ / ,»~'2?\ "

t/ regarding sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed upon the appellants is modified to the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them 'six years two months 13 days. The order.V._r'égyard3'ng d*'i"rié_ confirmed. g The appeliants are di>recteci'to»:'i3_e releasiegdv f'roVm"p»ri'son on their depositing fine amot2«'nVt';. it it ' Communicate. :__ﬁitnge 'order to the Superintendent, Centraiyg :APar_a'.ppana Agrahara, Bangaiore and'~ai.so tne»:tria«! may also be furnished to the |earnedV"cou'nsei~__ fon'a~'ppeiiants as also learned counsei a':p'ipea_gring foriresnorident -- CB1. it s. appeais are disposed off in terms of this order. sci/-

Eudge "nab

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court