Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Bharath S/O Anand on 31 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 61)
:Present :
Sri Vidyadhar Shirahatti, LL.M
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 31st day of March, 2021
S.C. No.245/2013
COMPLAINANT:- The State of Karnataka,
By Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED:- 1 Bharath S/o Anand,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No. 11, 2nd cross, SVG Nagar,
Moodalapalya, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore-560 040.
2 Sandeep S/o Rajashetty,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No. 10, 3rd Main, 7th cross,
Huchchappa Layout,
Moodalapalya,
Bangalore-560 040.
Date of offence 29.07.2012
Date of report of offence 29.07.2012
Name of the complainant Ninganagowda
2 S.C.No.245/2013
Date of commencement of 03.10.2019
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 02.03.2021
Offences complained of Sec. 489(b) & 489 (c) of IPC
Opinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by By Sri.MTM, Adv
JUDGMENT
This charge sheet has filed by Mahalakshmi Layout Police against accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.489(c) & 489(d) of IPC.
2. Brief case of the prosecution is that:
That on 29.07.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. at Kamalammana Gundi Play Ground, situated near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, within the limits of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 were found in possession of 582 denomination currency note of bank notes of the face value of Rs 500/- denomination worth Rs 2,91,000/-, knowing or having reason to believe that the same are counterfeit bank notes and intending to 3 S.C.No.245/2013 use the same as genuine currency note and the accused were found possessing of computer, scanner, printer for the purpose of being used for printing of counterfeit currency notes in the house of accused No.1.
3. Subsequently, after completion of investigation, CW-1 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.489(c) and (d) of IPC. Since the offences alleged against accused, are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned VII ACMM Bengaluru, as per order date.31/1/2013 committed the case against accused No.1 and 2 to the Hon'ble Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru. That on committal, the case was registered as S.C.245/2013 and made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, accused appeared through their counsel and they are enlarged on bail.
4. Thereafter, admitting of the case, accused were secured. On hearing the prosecution as well as defense 4 S.C.No.245/2013 counsel u/Sec 227 of Cr.P.C, this court framed the charge against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/Sec.489(c) and 489(d) of IPC, the contents of the charge for the above said offences read over and explained to accused No.1 and 2 in the language known to them and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, prosecution have cited 12 witnesses, out of that prosecution examined only Five witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 27 and M.O 1 to 4. Thereafter, the statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The case of defence is total denial of prosecution case and the defence examined none and no documents are marked.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for accused. Perused the records.
5 S.C.No.245/2013
7. The points that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29.07.2012 at about 1.00 p.m. at Kamalammana Gundi Play Ground, situated near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, within the limits of Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, accused No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused No.3 were found in possession of 582 denomination currency note of bank notes of the face value of Rs 500/- denomination worth Rs 2,91,000/-, knowing or having reason to believe that the same are counterfeit bank notes and intending to use the same as genuine currency note and thereby committed the offence punishable u/Sec. 489(c) of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, and the accused were found possessing of computer, scanner, printer for the purpose of being used for 6 S.C.No.245/2013 printing of counterfeit currency notes in the house of accused No.1. and thus committed offence punishable u/Sec. 489(d) of IPC?
3) What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1:- In the Negative Point No.2:- In the Negative Point No.3:- As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2:- I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW1 to 5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.1 to 27 and M.O.1 to 4.
10. P.W.1 is the PSI and P.W.2 is the Police Constable have stated in their evidence that they along with C.W6 to 9 were on duty, they received information that 3 persons were exchanging fake currency notes, they went in van and found that the said three persons were there with Bajaj two wheeler vehicle along with a bag.
After seeing them, the said persons tried to ran away and 7 S.C.No.245/2013 they caught two persons and one person escaped. They informed that they came there to exchange fake currency notes with original ones. Then they brought them with Bajaj vehicle and produced before C.W.12 with report and fake notes. In their cross-examination they have stated that they do not know the colour of the bag which they seized from the accused and they also do not know who brought the bag and cover to seize the properties. They have further stated in their cross-examination that they do not know who was the SHO on that day and they also do not know the number of the vehicle in which they visited the spot.
11. P.W3 is the witness to Ex.P.2 mahazar has turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that the police have not seized any items from the accused.
12. P.W.4 is the retired PSI has stated in his evidence that on 8.10.2012 when he was on duty, the PI of his station asked him to hand over 12 sealed cover to 8 S.C.No.245/2013 the Department of Press, Reserve Bank of India, Mysore, he went to Mysore and handed over the same to the concerned department and gave report at Ex.P.17 with regard to the same. On 6.11.2012 he obtained examination report and articles from the said Department and produced the same before P.I. of his Police Station with report at Ex.P.18. In his cross- examination he has denied the suggestion that he has not given any items to the Department of Press and not produced the examination report before the Police Inspector.
13. P.W5 is the retired Dy.S.P. has stated in his evidence that on 29.7.2012 when he was in station, C.W.1 brought two persons with two wheeler and fake currency notes and produced before him with report and he subjected the same to P.F. No. 78/2012, arrested the accused and recorded their voluntary statements. As per their voluntary statements Ex.P.21 and 22, he along with 9 S.C.No.245/2013 panchas went to the house of accused where he seized computer, printer, CPU and photo trig mark and recorded statements of C.W.4 and 5. On 8.10.2012 he sent the currency notes through C.W.11 to Reserve Bank, Mysore to find out the genuineness and on 23.11.2012 he received expert report as per Ex.P.23 and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.
14. It is relevant to note that PW1 who is the PSI has stated in his cross-examination that after receiving the information from the informant, he has not mentioned the same in his station diary or in his note book. P.w.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he do not know who was SHO on the said date and he do not know who has written Ex.P.2 mahazar and he also do not know who has brought bad and cover to seal the articles of this case. P.W.3 is witness to Ex.P.2 mahazar has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.w.4 is the retired PSI has stated about sending the seized currency notes for examination and report. 10 S.C.No.245/2013 P.w.5 Dy.S.P. has stated about investigation of the case, seizure of currency notes and filing of charge sheet.
15. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW5, it can be said that he simply states regarding registration of complaint and drawing of seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and seizure of currency notes from the possession of accused. It is important to note that, the admittedly the PW5 is the police official and has deposed in his official capacity. Therefore, his evidence has to be corroborated by the independent witnesses. Added to this, very independent mahazar witness i.e PW3 in whose presence Ex.P.2 was drawn, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The hostile evidence of PW3 and non-corroborative evidence of P.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 create doubt as to the seizure of currency notes and other properties from the possession of accused. As such, the evidence of these witnesses alone are not sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution. Even none of the witnesses who were present at the time of arresting of accused is not examined.
11 S.C.No.245/2013
16. On careful appreciation of evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 it can be said that except the evidence of I.O PW5, there is no any other corroborative, cogent and consistent evidence to believe the case of the prosecution. Inspite of issuance of summons to other witnesses, they have not appeared before the Court to tender their evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence to that effect, hostile evidence of PW3 cuts the very root of the prosecution case and creates doubt and that apart non examination of other independent witnesses are also fatal to the case of prosecution. Absolutely, there is nothing on record to believe that accused were found in possession of fake currency notes and he intended to use fake currency notes as genuine. So, essential ingredients of the offences alleged u/s.489(c) and (d) are not being attracted. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the materials placed on record by the prosecution itself is not sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution to hold that these accused guilty of the offences alleged. As such prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable 12 S.C.No.245/2013 doubt. Hence, accused No.1 and 2 are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
17. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.489(c) and (d) of IPC.
Bail bonds of this accused and that of their sureties stand canceled.
Case papers and properties shall be preserved for trial against split up accused No.3.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, revised by me and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 31 st day of March, 2021) (Vidyadhar Shirahatti) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
13 S.C.No.245/2013ANNEXURES:
List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Ninganagouda PW2 Raghu PW3 Natesh PW4 A.R.Sudhindra PW5 Babunarona
List of witnesses examined for the defence:
-Nil-
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.3 & 4 Notices
Ex.P.4 to 16 Fake currency notes
Ex.P.17 & 18 Reports
Ex.P.19 F.I.R.
Ex.P.20 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.21 Statement of accused
Ex.P.22 Portions of statement
Ex.P.23 FSL report
Ex.P.24 Acknowledgement
Ex.P.25 Note printing laser
Ex.P.26 Certified letter
Ex.P.27 Report of Expert
List of documents exhibited on behalf of
defence:
Nil
14 S.C.No.245/2013
List of M.O. marked for the prosecution:
MO.1 Computer with keyboard
MO.2 Printer
MO.3 CPU
MO.4 Photo trimmer
(Vidyadhar Shirahatti)
LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.