Bangalore District Court
State By Yashwanthpura Police Station vs Pappu Kumar on 21 March, 2022
1
S.C.No.716/2016
KABC010124902016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 21 st day of March, 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.716/2016
COMPLAINANT:- State by Yashwanthpura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED: : Pappu Kumar,
Ram Ramek Bal Das,
Aged about 19 years,
R/at Bhavanipura Village,
Sugramapura Tana,
Mothiyar District,
Bihar District.
2
S.C.No.716/2016
1. Date of commission of offence : 04.02.2016
2. Date of report of offence : 04.02.2016
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 04.02.2016
4. Name of the complainant : Venkatesh T.
5. Date of recording evidence : 17.10.2019
6. Date of closing evidence : 17.08.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.489(c) of I.P.C.,
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offence U/s.489(c) of I.P.C.
is proved against accused
9. State represented by : Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. T.Mahesh,
Adv. for accused
JUDGMENT
In the present case accused stands charged for offences punishable U/s.489(C) of I.P.C. in Cr.No.62/2016 of Yashwanthpura police station.
3S.C.No.716/2016
2. There are no undisputed facts in this case.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2016 morning at 10.30 a.m., Cw.1/ Venkatesh police Sub-Inspector got information that one person is in possession of counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination and trying to circulate the same at Smart Zone Cloth Shop No.1068 situated at Muniyamma building , first Main Road, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru. Cw.1 went to the shop, searched and seized counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination under the cover of mahazar, sent the same for examination by the experts at Reserve Bank of India. After conclusion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for offence punishable U/s.489(c) of I.P.C.
4. Charge being read over and explained to the accused as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During personal examination U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., accused has denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution.
4S.C.No.716/2016
6. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused as per Section 234 of Cr.P.C.
7. Now, the points arising for determination are follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond any reasonable doubt that on 04.02.2016 morning at 10.30 a.m., accused had in his possession counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination and trying to circulate the same at Smart Zone Cloth Shop No.1068 situated at Muniyamma building, first Main Road, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru thereby committed offence punishable U/s.489(c) of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. What Order ?
8. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
5
S.C.No.716/2016
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1 :-Reasons for determination:- Cardinal principle of the criminal trial is that the accused shall be presumed to be innocent, till guilty is proved. As per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden of proof to prove ingredients of the charges framed against the accused beyond any reasonable doubts is on the prosecution. To determine whether the prosecution succeeded to discharge burden of proof casts U/s.102 of Indian Evidence Act, it is just and necessary to assess evidence adduced, documents produced on behalf of the prosecution. To establish the case, prosecution examined 6 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got exhibited 7 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and got marked one material object at Mo.1.
10. Cw.2/Manjunatha panch witness to Ex.P.1 seizure panchanama is examined as Pw.1. In his evidence Pw.1 has deposed that around 3 years ago he went Yashwanthpura police station to get permission to hold function. At that time Yashwanthpura police had taken his signature on Ex.P.1. He do not know the contents mentioned on Ex.P.1. Police did not prepare any panchanama in his presence. Police did not seized anything in his presence. Pw.1 was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution side. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State sought 6 S.C.No.716/2016 permission to question Pw.1 U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act. Even in the cross-examination, no such admissions elicited to show that Pw.1 deposed falsely.
11. Cw.6/Shivakumar police constable is examined as Pw.2. Cw.1/ Venkatesh P.S.I. is examined as Pw.6. In their evidence Pw.2 and Pw.6 have deposed about receipt of credible inofrmaiton in respect of possession of counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) by one person and attempting to circulate the same at Smart Zone Cloth Shop situated at First Main Road, at Yashwanthpura. when they went to the shop, Shafiulla owner of the shop had shown one person. Summoning two panch witnesses Cw.1/ Venkatesh P.S.I. conducted search of the accused. He found a note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination inside the right pocket of the shirt of that person. On inspection, they found that silver thread on the middle of the currency note was not clearly visible and the said note was not in similar to that of other ordinary notes printed by the Reserve Bank of India. Having suspension that the said note may be fake currency note, they prepared panchanama between 11.00 to 12.00 'o' clock and seized that note. On enquiry the said person informed his name as Pappukumar of Mattiyari district on Bihar State. They took that person to the police station. Cw.1 registered a case against him. Accused remained 7 S.C.No.716/2016 absent. Advocate for the accused filed application seeking exemption for presence of the accused. As there was no dispute in respect of identification of the accused, application filed by the advocate for the accused came to be allowed. Pw.2 and Pw.6 identified Ex.P.1 panchanama and Mo.1 seized currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination. Pw.2 and Pw.6 cross- examined by the accused side, but stands unrebutted.
12. Cw.4/Shafiulla, owner of the Smart Zone Shop examined as Pw.3. In his evidence Pw.3 has deposed that on 4.2.2016 he conducts business at his shop. Around 10.30 to 11.00 'o' clock a person came to his shop, purchased inner wear for Rs.60/-, paid Rs.1,000/- note. Sales boy of the shop inspected the said note, compared the same with other note of Rs.1,000/- and found difference in the said note. Because of doubt in respect of that note that the same be counterfeit currency note, he informed the same to Yashwanthpura police station. Yashwanthpura police came to the shop. He had shown accused person to the police. When the police inspected, they found the said Rs.1,000/- note with him. That person was unable to understand Kannada language. On enquiry he came to know that, that person is from Bihar State. Police seized the said note of Rs.1,000/- and took that person to the police station. He identified Mo.1/Rs.1,000/- note seized from the possession of the 8 S.C.No.716/2016 accused. Pw.3 further deposed that he can identify the accused person. Accused remained absent. Advocate for accused filed application as there was no dispute in respect of identification, application filed by the advocate for accused came to be allowed. Pw.3 cross-examined by the accused side but stands unrebutted.
13. Cw.5/Imran is examined as Pw.4, Pw.4 is the sales man at Smart zone shop of Cw.4/ Shafiulla. In his evidence Pw.4 stated that around 3 years ago at morning 10.30 to 11.00 a.m., a person came to the shop to purchase inner-wear of Rs.60/- paid Rs.1000/- note. As the said note was not similar to that of ordinary note, Cw.4/Shafiulla informed the same to Yashwanthpura police station. Yashwanthpura police came to the shop. On inspection, they found note of Rs.1,000/- with him. The said person was unable to understand Kannada language. On enquiry, they came to know that the said person came from Bihar state. Police took that person to the police station. Accused remain absent. As there was no dispute in respect of identification of the accused, application filed by the advocate for the accused came to be allowed. Pw.4 stands unrebutted during cross-examination.
14. Cw.7/Srinivas the Assistant General Manager, R.B.I. is examined as Pw.5. In his evidence Pw.5 explained that on 9 S.C.No.716/2016 12.2.2016 Yashwanthpura police submitted a note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination with request for a certificate regarding genuinenss of the said note. Pw.5 deposed that when the said note was subject to examination under a note sorting machine, genuineness of the said note was not established. Pw.5 identified certificate issued by him at Ex.P.2. Pw.5 identified Mo.1/Rs.1,000/- note examined by him before the court. Pw.5 stands unrebutted during cross-examination.
15. Evidence adduced by the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution is basis to determine the fact that whether prosecution proved beyond any reasonable doubt, the fact of possession of counterfeit currency note, intending to use the same as genuine by the accused person on the relevant day and place alleged in the charge sheet. Evidence adduced by Pw.2 to 4 proved the fact of possession of counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination at Mo.1 by the accused. Even though panch witness Pw.1 turned hostile and there are certain discrepancies in respect of preparation of Ex.P.1/panchanama by the Investigation Officer, the said doubt cannot be considered as a reasonable doubt. There are so many factors behind not supporting the panch witnesses to the case of the prosecution. Evidence adduced by Pw.2 to Pw.4 corroborates with the evidence adduced 10 S.C.No.716/2016 by Pw.5 Assistant General Manager of Reserve Bank of India. Pw.5 is a responsible officer who served at currency note print section of Reserve Bank of India. In his evidence Pw.5 clearly deposed in respect of receiving Mo.1/currency note of the denomination of Rs.1,000 seized by the Investigation Officer, examination of Mo.1/Rs.1000/- currency note by using sorting machine. According to Pw.5 genuineness of the Mo.1/Currency Note of Rs.1,000/- was not established. Evidence adduced by Pw.5 clearly established the fact that Mo.1/Rs.1,000/- currency note found in possession of the accused was not genuine currency note.
16. Section 489(c) of I.P.C. states as under;
489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes.--Whoever has in his possession any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
17. While answering for the charges framed against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.489(c) of I.P.C. and at the time of recording statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied 11 S.C.No.716/2016 allegations made against him but not submitted any specific plea of defence. Therefore, it has to be considered that denial of entire prosecution case is the defence of the accused. To establish the case against accused first and foremost thing to be done by the prosecution is proving the seizure of Mo.1/Rs.1000/- forged or counterfeit currency note from the possession of the accused on the date of incident. Pw.2 and Pw.6 complainant police officer and the police constable who accompanied Pw.6/Cw.1 have deposed in accordance with their case. In corroboration with the evidence adduced by Pw.2 and Pw.6, Pw.3/Shafiulla owner and Pw.4/Imran, Salesman of Smart Zone Cloth center have deposed before the court. Pw.2 to Pw.4 and Pw.6 have identified the accused as well as Mo.1/ alleged forged counterfeit currency note. Pw.6/Cw.1 identified his signature of Ex.P.1 seizure mahazar at Ex.P.1(b). Pw.6 further deposed that immediately after seizure of Mo.1 he recorded the same in station P.F.No.19/2016, reported the same to the jurisdictional magistrate. Pw.6 further deposed in respect of recording statement of Shafiulla and Imran. Contents of statement of Shafiulla and Imran corroborates with the evidence deposed be them before the court. No such admissions are elicited in the cross- examination of Pw.2 to 4, 6 and to draw inference that a false case is foist against the accused. No ill-will or enemity against the accused is established during their cross-examination. No reason of 12 S.C.No.716/2016 whatsoever is elicited in the cross-examination to the extent of probabilities that the accused is falsely implicated in a false case of possessing forged or counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand). No explanation is forthcoming by the accused during the course of recording his statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of case against him on serious allegation of possessing forging or counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand). On the basis of relevant facts duly proved by the prosecution , this court concludes that on the relevant day accused had in his possession, Mo.1/ counterfeit currency note of Rs.1,000/-. Evidence adduced by Pw.3 and Pw.4 is admissible U/s.5 and 60 of Indian Evidence Act.
18. Evidence adduced by Pw.1 to Pw.4 established actus- reas in respect of possession of counterfeit currency note by the accused evidence adduced by Pw.5 expert established the fact that Mo.1 note seized from the possession of the accused was not a genuine currency note. Pw.3 and Pw.4 deposed in respect of attempt made by the accused to circulate Mo.1 fake currency note by purchasing garments worth Rs.60/-(sixty). Therefore required mens-rea i.e., guilty mind of the accused to circulate fake currency note is established. Therefore this court concludes that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the accused is held guilty of committing offence punishable U/s.489(c) of I.P.C.
13S.C.No.716/2016
19. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 04.02.2016 morning at 10.30 a.m. accused had in possession of currency note of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) denomination, attempted to circulate the same as genuine currency note, thereby accused committed offence punishable U/s.489(c) of I.P.C. Hence point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
20. POINT NO.2 In view of the above findings on point No.1, following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.489(c) of I.P.C.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 21 st day of March 2022.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
14S.C.No.716/2016 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Manjunath Pw.2 N.K.Shivakumar Pw.3 Shafiulla Pw.4 Imran Pw.5 V.Srinivas Pw.6 Venkatesh T. II. For Defence:- -Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Panchanama Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.2 Letter Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.5 Ex.P.3 Report Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.4 F.I.R. Ex.P.4(a) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.5 Property Form Ex.P.5(a) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.6 Requisition 15 S.C.No.716/2016 Ex.P.6(a) Signature of Pw.6 Ex.P.7 Requisition Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.6 IV.For Defence side:- -Nil- V. List of material objects marked:- Mo.1 Currency note denomination of Rs.1,000/- (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 16 S.C.No.716/2016 21.03.2022 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER
Invoking provisions U/s.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.489(c) of I.P.C.
To hear regarding sentence.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
17 S.C.No.716/2016