Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Arunkumar S/O Ramachandran on 12 December, 2019
1
SC No. 344/2017
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
Present: Sri. Gururaj Somakkalavar, M.A.,LL.B.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2019
SESSIONS CASE No.344/2017
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By HSR P.S.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor )
-V/S-
Accused : 1. Arunkumar s/o Ramachandran,
Aged about 29 years,
No. 2/891, Gandhinagar,
Mukandapalli, Hosur tq.
Krishnagiri, Tamilnadu.
2. Gowrishankar G.
s/o Govindarajan,
32 years, NO. 187, 10th main,
22nd cross, HSR layout,
7th Sector, Bangalore.
1. Date of commission of offence : 15.12.2016
2. Date of report of occurrence : 15.12.2016
3. Date of commencement of evidence: 17.5.2018
4. Date of closing of evidence : 8.4.2019
5. Name of the complainant : Sudhanush kumar
6. Offence complained of : U/s 489(a,b,c&e)
r/w 34 of IPC
2
SC No. 344/2017
7. Opinion of the Judge :
: JUDGMENT :
This is a case filed by the Police Inspector of HSR layout Police Station, against accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under section 489(1) and 489( C) of IPC by showing A1 as absconded and A4 as juvenile.
2. The committal court after taking cognizance of the charge-sheet registered C.C. No. 5566/2017 on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, against Accused No.1 and 2 and committed the case for trial under Sec. 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, after complying the provision of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge. In pursuant to the committal order, on committal of the case, present case has been registered and assigned to this court for disposal in accordance with law. While committing the case to the Sessions Court, the accused No.1 and 2 were in JC. After securing the presence of the accused, this Court heard the counsel for accused and the prosecution and found sufficient material to frame the charge. Accordingly, my learned Predecessor has framed the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
3. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.12.2016 CW. 1 received credible information regarding circulation of counterfeit notes and hence he secured CW. 2 to 6 who are the Income Tax Officers and also secured jurisdictional police who are CW. 7 to 9 and rushed to 1st main road, 3rd Sector, HSR layout, near Bank of India at about 5.50 pm and found that 3 SC No. 344/2017 the accused were engaged in exchanging the counterfeit notes with new notes and on inquiry the accused disclosed that that they scanned the note of 200 denomination and took the color xerox and kept in white paper bundle in between the notes and kept in the bag and they were intending to circulate the same as if they are the old original notes and tried to dupe the public. Hence they arrested the accused. After completion of investigation filed the Charge Sheet against the accused.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, Prosecution examined 8 witnesses out of 16 witnesses as PW.1 to 8 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to P.13 and 9 Mos. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statement of the accused U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Both accused denied incriminating evidence appeared against them from the prosecution materials and they have not chosen to lead defence evidence. The statement is marked as Ex.D.1.
5. Heard the arguments of learned public prosecutor and defence counsel.
6. Perused the papers.
7. In the light of above materials, following points fall for decision making of this court:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 15.12.2016 at about 5.50 pm near Bank of India, 18 th main road, 3rd Sector, HSR layout the accused possessed 2000 denomination counterfeit Indian currency notes which were kept above and below the white paper with an intention to circulate and 4 SC No. 344/2017 hence they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 489 (a) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place the accused possessed counterfeit notes having knowledge that said notes are counterfeited with an intention to use them as a genuine and thereby both accused have committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 489-B of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place the accused possessed counterfeit notes having knowledge that said notes are counterfeited and with intention to use them as a genuine and thereby both accused have committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 489-C of Indian Penal Code?
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place the accused tried to exchange the counterfeit notes and cheat the public and thereby both accused have committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 489-E of Indian Penal Code?
3. What order?
8. This court upon appreciation of available materials, 5 SC No. 344/2017 with reference to prevailing legal aspects, give findings to the above points as follows:-
Point No.1 - Negative;
Point No.2 - Negative;
Point No.3 - As per final order,
for the following:-
: REASONS :
9. POINT NO.1 TO 4 :- As these points are
interconnected to each other, they are taken up together for discussion, so as to avoid repetition of facts. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused were circulating counterfeit currency notes for unlawful gain.
10. As per the canon of criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring home alleged guilt of accused with production of cogent and satisfactory evidence. Case of both the accused is a total denial of the version of prosecution.
PW. 1 Sudhanush kumar has deposed that he is the Inspector of Income Tax, Investigation wing, Bengaluru and on 15.12.2016 as per the direction of CW2, he Cw3 and 4 and 3 police constables have rushed to the spot near BDA complex of HSR Layout and by seeing them one person who sat on a pulser bike tried to escape from the spot at that time they caught hold him and on inquiry they found bundles of notes and on further examination they found that top of the bundles contains genuine currency notes of face value of Rs.2000 and remaining papers in the bundles are xerox papers and he disclosed his name as Arunkumar and 6 SC No. 344/2017 another person was one Gowrishankar. He further deposed that this case pertains to Income tax, hence he lodge the complaint before the jurisdiction police about this aspect. He has identified the complaint as per Ex.P.1 and his signature is marked as Ex.P.1(a). he further deposed that at the same time he handed over the bag and accused to the police and there after police have seized five original currency notes face value of Rs.5000 and five bundles of xerox cutting papers, bag and bike, the police have drawn the Mahazar in the presence of him and Panchas, he identified the seizer Panchanama and his signature. Panchanama is marked as Ex.P.2 and the signature is marked as Ex.P.2(a). He identified black regzine bag, which is marked as M.O.1., 4 packets, which are marked as M.O.2 to 5 and the signatures of the witness is marked as M.O.2(a) to 5(a). It also contains sealed green color cover affixing a slip containing To, The court, same is marked as MO.6. He also identified article No.1/MO.2, it contains two bundles of white cutting papers and 4 plastic covers, article No.2/MO.3, it contains four bundles of white cutting papers, article No.3/MO.4, it contains three bundles of white cutting papers, article No.4/MO.5, it contains four bundles of white cutting papers. M.O.6 is the report dtd.21.04.2017 with sample seal, they are marked as Ex.P.3 and P.4 and five bundles of fake notes 7 SC No. 344/2017 of face values of Rs.2000. Fake notes are marked as M.O.6(a) to (e). He identified the photo of the motor bike, which is marked as Ex.P.5. The box containing MO's 2 to 5 is marked as MO.8.
In the cross examination he deposed that he has not personally received the information and he has not mentioned in the complaint about from whom he has received information.
CW3 and 4 were reached the spot before I reach the spot. I am not aware about who informed the local police for their assistance. It is true to suggest that, I have not served notice as required U/sec 132(2) of Income Tax Act to the police. It is true to suggest that, notice U/Sec 131(a) is to be served on the person to be searched. It is true to suggest that, at the time of search and seizer you are required to carryout the official search form. It is false to suggest that, on that day we are not carried the said search form. Tot he suggestion that, are you have any problem to list out the seized article in the said search form witness 8 SC No. 344/2017 deposed that it is only an enquiry before search or survey. I am working as Inspector of Income tax. To the question that, are you authorised to conduct the search, witness deposed that, he is not authorised, but he can participate along with the authorised officer.
Authorised officer to conduct the search in our department is Principal director or director of income tax. Tot he question are you went to the spot for the purpose of conducting the enquiry or to search, witness deposed that, he went to the spot for the purpose of enquiry. It is true to suggest that, our team is received credible information regarding exchange of huge currency notes illegally. It is true to suggest that in general if the income tax officers come across any illegal money or illegal transaction with money is found, the said illegal money will be seized by the I.T. officer.
Witness volunteers that, if it is not seized, they will inform the same to the police. I am not aware about the sanctioning of special power to I.T department to seize 9 SC No. 344/2017 illegal transaction with demonetarized money at the time of demonetization of 500 and 1000 rupees currency notes. CW2 is the income tax officer and CW3 to 7 along with me are income tax inspectors.
After receiving the information we leave the office at about 4.05 minutes. At about 5.45 minutes we reached the spot, along with me CW2 and 5 to 7 are left the office. We reached the spot through the Innova Car. To the suggestion that, by the time you reach the spot, CW3 and 4 were caught hold accused No.2, witness deposed that, they are not caught hold but, CW4 was talking with a person, who is sat on the bike.
Witness identified the said accused is Arunkumar is before the court. Before reaching the spot I went to the BDA complex situated at HSR Layout and then went to the spot. First CW4 caught hold the accused and then police caught hold the accused. I have not caught hold the accused. It is true to suggest that, along with CW4 only the police were caught hold the accused. To the 10 SC No. 344/2017 suggestion that, after the accused is arrested you reached the station to lodged the complaint, witness deposed that, he along with accused and police went to the police station. Witness volunteers that, at that time CW5 is also accompanied him. Around 6.45 to 7.00pm he went to the police station. At that time I was in the police station for about two hours. Apart from myself, police and accused two pancha witnesses Krishna and Venkatesh are also accompanied us to the station. Now I am not able to say the exact time of securing the witnesses. Around the station one petrol bunk and vacant site are there. At about one week back I visited the station.
There are 13 bundles of white cutting papers are produced before the court. It is true to suggest that the properties produced before the court are seized by the police at our instance. Now I am not remember whether after seizer of MO's they were put in the box before the court. It is true to suggest that, the slip affixed on the 11 SC No. 344/2017 box MO.8 is not contained my signature and now I am not able to say whether the seized articles are put together or not. Police have not conducted my personal search. Police have not given separate seizer list, but they have issued FIR and seizer panchanama. Now I am not able to say whether police have obtained the signatures of the accused at the time of seizer. It is true to suggest that, I have not mentioned about the visiting the BDA complex, HSR Layout before reaching the spot in my complaint. It is true to suggest that, I have not mentioned the name of CW4 in my complaint. It is true to suggest that, I was not able to see escaping of accused No.2 from the spot due to the gathering of people. I have not visited the house of accused No.2. It is false to suggest that, in collusion with the police I have created false documents. It is false to suggest that, on the date of incident I have not visited the spot and also the police station, but later I gave complaint. It is false to suggest that, at the time of recovery of printer 12 SC No. 344/2017 from the house of the accused No.2 I was also present.
PW. 2 the P.C. of complainant PS has deposed that on 28.11.2014 he submitted the 50 notes of 1000 face value and 34 notes of 500 face value to RBI and obtained the acknowledgment and on 26.12.2014 received back the said notes and submitted the same with report to PSI, the acknowledgement and the report of RBI are is marked as Ex.P.1 and 4 respectively, sample seal is marked as Ex.P.5, He identified the cover of notes. This witness has not been cross examined by the defence.
11. PW. 3 Rangappa has deposed that he know the accused and they are his tenants and he let his house by receiving advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- on monthly rent of Rs.1500/-, no agreement is entered in this regard, he came to know about filing of case against the accused in respect of counterfeit notes and he gave statement to the police. In the cross examination he admitted that the house is to be let out through rent Agreement and denied the suggestion that as per the request of the police he is deposing falsely.
12. PW.4 the then PSI of Kamakshipalya PS has deposed that on 8.11.2014 at about 3.00 p.m after the receipt of the information about circulation of counterfeit currency notes at Hegganahally main road, adjacent to Hanuman Provision Store, he secured CW. 2 and 3 the panchas, and his staff CW. 9, 10 and CW. 11 (PW. 2) rushed to the spot and on seeing the police 13 SC No. 344/2017 one person escaped from the spot and they caught hold one person who disclosed his name as Karthik and the name of absconded person is stated as Suresh, then he made personal search of Karthik and found and seized 39 counterfeit notes each at the face value of 1000/- and 2 notes of 100 denomination,2 notes of 500 denomination and then drawn the mahazar and obtained the signatures of the panchas and then returned to the PS and on the basis of suo moto complaint registered the case and sent the FIR to the Court and subjected the seized notes to PF. He further deposed that the seized notes were separately sealed in covers and affixed the slip containing the signatures of the panchas and himself, he identified the notice served to panchas is marked as Ex.P.6 and 7, the mahazar is marked as Ex.P.8, the complaint is marked as Ex.P.9, FIR is marked as Ex.P.10. he identified his signatures as Ex.P. 6(a) to 10(a). He further deposed that on inquiry it reveals that Karthik is aged 17 years, hence he recorded his statement through Basco Organization and he has stated in his statement that his uncle Suresh gave the counterfeit notes and as per his instructions he used to purchase the things by giving the counterfeit notes. He further deposed that thereafter he sent the juvenile accused Karthik to Bala Mandira and then recorded the statement of CW. 2, 3 and CW. 9 to 11 and on 9.11.2014 again secured the juvenile accused to the PS and sent him to Victoria Hospital for Radio Diagnoses and Imagine Division for examination and after the examination sent him to Juvenile Justice Board and on 10.11.2014 CW. 9 and 10 caught hold Suresh and produced before him with their report-Ex.P.11 and hence he took Suresh to custody and recorded his voluntary statement and in his statement Suresh 14 SC No. 344/2017 has stated that one Shivashakthi @ Belliyan used to give counterfeit notes to the tune of 1-2 lakhs for circulation once in 10-15 days and agreed to give commission of Rs. 1500/- and he intimated the same to his mother Lakshmi - A3 and Karthik used to circulate the said notes.
13. He further stated in his statement he stated that he kept Rs. 28,000 in his house and he will produce the same if he come alongwith him. The said statement of accused Suresh is marked as Ex.P.12, his signature is marked as Ex.P.12(b). PW. 4 further deposed that as per his statement he visited his house at Agrahara Dasarahaly, 17th A cross and seized the 34 counterfeit currency notes of 500 face value and 11 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value notes in the presence of panchas Krishnakumar-CW. 4 and CW.5 and the staff CW. 9 to 11 and then drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.14, the notice is marked as Ex.P.13, then recorded the statement of panchas and then sent the accused for medical examination and thereafter produced before the Court. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of owner of the house of accused -PW. 3. On 14.11.2014 CW. 12 caught accused Lakshmi and produced her before him with the report-Ex.P.15, as such he arrested her and recorded her voluntary statement, in her statement she stated that one Shivashakthi @ Palliyan gave counterfeit currency notes to her and her son for circulation on the commission basis. He further deposed that on 25.11.2014 he deputed CW. 9 and 10 to trace the accused Shivashakthi, but they could not traced him and as such they submitted their report-Ex.P.16. On 28.11.2014 he sent the seized notes to RBI through CW. 13 with requisition-Ex.P.17, the passport given to 15 SC No. 344/2017 CW. 13 is marked as Ex.P.18, CW. 13 submitted the notes and obtained the acknowledgement. He produced his report-Ex.P.1 and acknowledgement-Ex.P.4, on 10.12.2014 CW. 9 and 10 have submitted their reports-Ex.P.19 and 20 regarding non tracing the accused Shivashakthi , on 26.12.2014 PW. 1 produced the examined counterfeit notes and report of RBI. The acknowledgement and his report is marked as Ex.P.2 and 3, the sample seal is marked as Ex.P.5 . The report of RBI is marked as Ex.P.21, the requisition sent to Victoria Hospital to know the age of juvenile accused, is marked as Ex.P.22, the report of Hospital is marked as Ex.P.22. He further deposed that on 31.12.2014 he submitted the Charge Sheet before the Juvenile Justice Board against the juvenile and then submitted the Charge Sheet against A2 and A3 before this Court. He identified Accused, the seized 39 counterfeit notes which are marked as MO.1, 2 notes of 100 face value marked as MO.2 and 3, 2 notes of 500 denomination which are marked as MO.4 and 5, 11 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value which marked as MO.6, 34 notes of 500 face value which are marked as MO.7 before the Court. The 81 covers which were used to pack the notes are marked as MO.8. In his cross examination he deposed that he has mentioned the information received in the SH Diary and admitted that the Hanuman Provision Store is situated in the main road and it is busiest place and also admits that the provision stores and hotels are also situated near Hanuman Provision Store. He also admits that he has not obtained the statements of any person present at the spot and also the neighbors and also admitted that CW. 2 and 3 are not the local residents and he has not obtained signatures of the local residents of the spot. He further admits that he has not 16 SC No. 344/2017 produced any document to show that juvenile Karthik is relative of A2 and 3. he also admitted that while seizing Mo. 1 to 7 he has not obtained signature of Accused No.2 and 3 on the panchanama. He also admits that he is the complainant and IO in this case. He denied the suggestion that in order to facilitate to file the chargte sheet he has created the documents and further denied the suggestion that there is no connection between A2, A3 and MOs 1 to 7. He denied the suggestion that he has not served the notice on the panchas, but he created notice and the panchanama and he has not arrested Karthik and he has not given any statement about Suresha. He further denied that he has not visited the house of accused and recovered the counterfeit notes in the presence of CW. 4 and 5 and he created the same for the purpose of the case. To the question that ; you have not obtained the signatures of owner of the house for the mahazar Ex.P.14, witness deposed that he obtained the signature of panchas and he also admitted that CW. 4 and 5 are the local residents of house in which he conducted the panchanama. He also denied arrest of accused No.3 and recording of her statement.
14. PW. 5 Anand the spot mahazar witness has deposed that the Kamakshipalya police obtained his signatures on one documents, he do not know the contents of the documents, the police have not seized anything in his presence, not shown any thing, he had not gave any statement to the police, he had not seen the accused and one boy at the spot, he identified his signature at Ex.P.6(a), Ex.P.6 is the notice and Ex.P.8 is the mahazar, he identified his signatures on MO.1 to 8 and also identified his signatures as per MO.2(b) to 5(b), he deposed 17 SC No. 344/2017 that he put his signatures at PS and he do not know the contents of the covers. He turned hostile, not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination by the PP he denied the suggestions put to him, his statement is marked as Ex.P.24.
15. Out of 13 charge sheeted witnesses, prosecution is able to examine only 5 witnesses as stated above. Out of five witnesses PW. 1,2 and 4 are the official witnesses and PW. 3 is the owner of the house of the accused and PW. 5 is the pancha to the arrest of Karthik and seizure of notes from Karthik. It is the case of the prosecution that after receiving the information regarding the circulation of counterfeit notes, by PW.4 PSI, he secured the panchas and his staff and then rushed to spot and on seeing them one person ran away from the spot and they caught hold one person and recovered 39 counterfeit notes of face value 1000 and 2 genuine notes of 500 denomination and another 2 notes of 100 denomination. Then he drawn the mahazar to that effect as per Ex.P. 8. It is the further case of the prosecution that PSI has secured the witnesses by issuing notice to the panchas as per Ex.P.6 and 7. PW. 5 is one of the pancha to mahazar Ex.P.8. But he completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has not at all supported the arresting of Karthik and recoveries from him. In his evidence though he identified his signatures on notice and panchanama and also on the covers which were used for packing the seized notes, he specifically deposed that he does not know the contents of the covers. In order to prove the said recoveries prosecution is not able to secure and examine another pancha CW.3. Again in order to prove the other 18 SC No. 344/2017 recoveries at the instance of A2, the prosecution not able to secure the pancha witnesses evenafter providing sufficient time and ultimately all the pancha witnesses are dropped by this Court as the proclamation is executed against them.
16. Further PW. 3 is the owner of the house and who is not the witness to any recovery mahazar and his evidence is not at all supports to establish the case of the prosecution. Apart from the evidence of PW. 3 and 5, the only evidence which remains is the evidence of official witnesses, which is not believable for want of corroboration and also in view of the admissions of PW. 4. On perusal of the evidence of PW. 4-PSI he is the complainant and I.O. of this case. In his cross examination he admits that he has not obtained the signatures of the local residents, at the place where he arrested Karthik and seized the counterfeit notes from him and also not recorded the statement of anybody. Admittedly it is a commercial place and if at all if he has tried to circulate the counterfeit notes, some one has to give statement to the police about the circulation of notes, but he has not examined anybody at the locality in support of his information and also arresting of Karthik and seizing of fake notes. Further PW. 4 also not obtained the signatures of the neighborers or even the owner of the house from where PW. 4 said to be recovered the counterfeit notes at the instance of A2. Further as per his admission he has not produced any document to show the relationship between juvenile Karthik with A2 and A3. Further on recovery of MO.1 to 7 he has also not obtained the signature of the accused on the recovery memo. From the above admissions and oral evidences, it creates doubts and also the prosecution not able to proved the recoveries. As per the settle 19 SC No. 344/2017 position of law one cannot act as both the complainant and Investigating Officer. It is against to the principles of natural justice and also the principles of criminal jurisprudence. In order to over come this anamoly PW. 4 has not at all explained why he himself investigated the case without referring the investigation to other I.O. Nor he has not produced any document to show that he was authorized by the higher official to proceed with the further investigation of the case. Under these circumstances, it can be held that the the I.O. and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Hence a serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court regarding the commission of alleged offences by the accused. Thus, the benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused as they deserve for it. Therefore, by extending the benefit of doubt, the accused are to be acquittal. Accordingly the prosecution failed to prove point no.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt as required under law. Therefore point no.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
17. POINT NO.3:- In the light of findings, on above points accused no.2 and 3 are to be acquitted for the offences U/Sec.489(b) and 489( c) of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec. 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 489(B) and 489(C) of Indian Penal Code.
Accused are set at free for the said offences.20
SC No. 344/2017 Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. MO.2 & 3, two Indian currency notes of 100 denomination are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period is over.
Office is directed to deposit two Indian currency notes of 500 denomination which are marked as MO.4 & 5, to RBI as per the Letter No. ID (BG) No. 4007/03, 12.004/2016-17 dated 14.6.2017 on behalf of State, as they are specified bank notes. The notes should be deposited after the appeal period is over.
M.O.1-39 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value M.O.6-11 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value MO.7-34 counterfeit notes of 500 face value MO.8 Empty covers, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Typed to my online dictation by the J.W., corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of August, 2017.) (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION PW1 H.K.Murthy PW2 Umesh PW3 Rangappa PW4 Gnanamurthy PW5 Anand LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION:
21SC No. 344/2017 Ex.P.1 Acknowledgement Ex.P.2 Report Ex.P.3 & 4 Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.5 Sample seal Ex.P.6 & 7 notice Ex.P.8 Spot panchanama Ex.P.9 Report Ex.P.10 FIR Ex.P.11 Report Ex.P.12 Sworn statement Ex.P.13 Notice Ex.P.14 Seizure panchanama Ex.P.15 Report Ex.P.16 Report Ex.P.17 Requisition Ex.P.18 Passport Ex.P.19 & 20 Report Ex.P.21 RBI report Ex.P.22 Requisition Ex.P.23 Hospital Report Ex.P.24 Statement of PW. 5 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
M.O.1-39 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value MO.2 & 3-two Indian currency notes of 100 denomination MO.4 & 5- two Indian currency notes of 500 denomination M.O.6-11 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value MO.7-34 counterfeit notes of 500 face value MO.8 Empty covers LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED : Nil 22 SC No. 344/2017 (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separate order ORDER In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec. 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 489(B) and 489(C) of Indian Penal Code.
Accused are set at free for the said offences. Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. MO.2 & 3, two Indian currency notes of 100 denomination are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period is over.
Office is directed to deposit two Indian currency notes of 500 denomination which are marked as MO.4 & 5, to RBI as per the Letter No. ID (BG) No. 4007/03, 12.004/2016-17 dated 14.6.2017 on behalf of State, as they are specified bank notes. The notes should be deposited after the appeal period is over.23
SC No. 344/2017 M.O.1-39 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value M.O.6-11 counterfeit notes of 1000 face value MO.7-34 counterfeit notes of 500 face value MO.8 Empty covers, are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.