Karnataka High Court
D.A. Abdul Latheef vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2013 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2013
IN CRL.A No. 618/2013
BETWEEN:
D.A. ABDUL LATHEEF
S/O. M.G. AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT. INDIRA EXTENSION,
KUSHALNAGAR, KODLIPET POST,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location: HIGH ALSO AT:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BYADAGOTTA VILLAGE,
KODLIPET,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M.H. HANEEF, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
C.P.I. KUSHALNAGAR CIRCLE
POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
05.04.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN
S.C.NO.52/2007 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489B AND SEC.120B OF IPC. THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 7
YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/-, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 489B AND 120B OF IPC AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE
TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 2 YEARS. THE SUBSTANTIVE
SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY
BUT NOT THE DEFAULT SENTENCE AND ETC.
IN CRL.A NO. 418/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. M. MOHAMMED HANEEF @ HANEEF
S/O. LATE B. MOHAMMED KUNHI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
TIMBER MERCHANT,
R/AT BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION,
KUSHALANAGAR,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
NATIVE OF BELLARE VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK-574 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 05.04.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI
IN S.C.NO.52/2007- CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489C,489B AND SEC.120B OF IPC
AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
Both appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge Kodagu,
Madikeri in S.C.No.52/2007 dated 05.04.2013.
2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the
trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that the
Inspector of Police, Kushalnagara Circle, submitted charge
sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 489-B,
489-C, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 02.09.2006,
PW4, B. R. Lingappa, then working as an Inspector in District
Crime Detection Branch, Kodagu, received a credible
information that two persons in Byachanahally were trafficking
counterfeit currency notes and were likely to come near Sathish
canteen in that village. On information, he went there with
CWs.7 to 10, Head Constables attached to the Crime Detection
Branch along with driver, PW.3 and two Panchas CW.3 and
CW.4. When they were waiting near the canteen, they found
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
two persons moving in a suspicious manner. The police
informants told them that they were the persons who were
trafficking counterfeit currency notes. Accordingly, police
officials surrounded those persons. One of them disclosed his
name as Muhammed Haneef and other as Latheef. They are
accused Nos.1 and 2 who have faced the trial in this case.
When accused No.1 was searched, in his pant pocket there
were 10 counterfeit currency notes of face value of Rs.1,000/-
each and ten more such notes of the face value of Rs.500/-
amounting to Rs.15,000/- in all. When enquired, the accused
No.1 told police officials that he, accused No.2 and one Suresha
@ Ashoka, Deepak, Akash, Kalam and others were trafficking in
counterfeit currency notes. The notes which were found with
accused No.1 were seized. Both the accused were taken to the
Kushalnagara police station and produced before PW.8-PSI.
PW.4 gave complaint as per Ex.P2 and also produced the
Mahazar as per Ex.P.1, under which the counterfeit notes were
seized. When the accused were searched, two mobile sets were
also found and they were also seized. The mobile sets were
also produced before P.W.8. On the basis of the complaint,
PW.8, registered a case in Crime No.100/2006 for the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
commission of alleged offence. He arrested the accused and
produced them before the Court. He handed over further
investigation to PW.10, Circle Inspector of Police,
Kushalanagar. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the
charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of
offences. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in
C.C.420/2007 and the same case was committed to the Court
of Sessions. Case was registered in S.C.No.52/2007.
5. On hearing the charges, the trial Court framed the
charges against the accused for the alleged commission of
offences. Same was read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 10 witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 10, 5 documents were marked as
ExsP.1 to P.5 and 24 material objects were marked as M.O.Nos.
1 to 24.
7. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused have totally
denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The mother of
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
the accused No.1 is examined as DW.1. On hearing the
argument, trial Court convicted the accused for the offence
under Section 489-B and 120-B of IPC. Accused No.1 is found
guilty of offence under Section 489-C and both the accused
found guilty for offence under Section 489-B and Section 120-B
of IPC and passed the sentence to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each
for the offence under Section 489-B and 120-B of IPC and
further, accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 3 years and to pay ₹10,000 for the offence under
Section 489-C of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence, accused No.1 has preferred
the appeal in Crl.A.No.418/2013 and accused No.2 has
preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.618/2013.
8. The learned counsel for the accused / appellant in
Crl.A.No.418, Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, would submit that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the Court below against the appellants for the
offence under Section 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC is highly
illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The trial Court has
committed a serious irregularities and illegalities in appreciating
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
the material evidence available on record and erred in
convicting the appellants for the commission of alleged
offences. The entire approach made by the trial Court into the
matter in dispute is erroneous in law. The evidence placed on
record by the prosecution suffers from contradictions,
improvements, omissions and the Court below ought to have
given the benefit of doubt in favour of appellants. None of the
witnesses have deposed that appellants attempted to sell or
were trafficking the counterfeit notes. At best, only the offence
under Section 418-C would have been made against the
appellant.
9. Further, it is submitted that the Court below has failed
to appreciate the evidence of DW.1, who is the mother of the
accused No.1. The manner in which the raid was conducted
and the arrest was made etc. makes the case of the
prosecution as highly doubtful. The prosecution has failed to
record the statement of independent witnesses at the spot of
arrest and seizure.
10. The proprietor or the workers of the canteen have
also not been examined before the trial Court. Except the police
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
officials and the panchas, no other independent witnesses have
been examined in support of the case of the prosecution.
Further, it is submitted that though the alleged offences are
cognizable in nature, the I.O. has not registered the case, soon
after the receipt of the information as to commission of
offences. Further, he has pointed out that in the FIR which is
marked as Ex.P5, it is shown by the police that the information
is received at police station on 02.09.2006 at 16:10 hours and
in General Diary Reference Entry No.(1), time is shown as
04:10 p.m. But, Ex.P1, the Mahazar dated 02.09.2006, reveals
that the Mahazar is conducted on the same day between 11.45
a.m. to 02.15 p.m. and the FIR is submitted to the Court on
02.09.2006, at 09.15 p.m. The complaint Ex.P2, reveals that
the Police Inspector in District Crime Investigation Unit, Kodagu
District, Madikeri, has lodged a complaint on 02.09.2006 at
16:10 hours and on the basis of this complaint case was
registered in Crime No.100/2006 for the offence under Section
489-B, 489-C and Section 120-B read with 34 IPC.
11. Before registration of the FIR, the investigation
conducted by the I.O. is illegal and not sustainable under law.
Further he would submit that, Ex.P2 reveals that, in all, 6
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
accused were involved in the commission of offence, but the
I.O. has submitted charge sheet against only 2 accused. In the
charge sheet, the I.O. has not explained anything that whether
he has dropped the case against other accused or as to
whether the I.O. has investigated against accused Nos.3 to 6.
The same is left blank. The conduct of the I.O. will create doubt
about this investigation. The Investigating Officer has
mechanically, without proper investigation, has submitted the
charge sheet against the accused, which is not sustainable
under law.
12. Accused No.1 has given explanation in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. stating that he is the
timber merchant and since there was an enmity between the
Police Inspector and himself, the Police Inspector has filed a
false charge against him. The same has not been considered by
the trial Court. DW.1 has clearly stated before the Court that
the I.O took the accused from his house prior to registration of
the case against him. On all these grounds he sought to allow
the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
13. To substantiate his argument, he has relied on the
following decisions:-
i) Umashankar V/s. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in (2001) 9 supreme court
cases 642;
ii) State by Lashkar Police Station, Mysore
V/s. M.V. Srinivasa, reported in 2003
SCC OnLine Kar;
iii) State of Karnataka by town police
station, Harihara V/s. Pinki and another
in Criminal Appeal No.1252/2016
passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.
14. Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel for the
appellant in Crl.A.No.418/2013, would submit that the I.O. has
not recovered any currency notes from the possession of the
present appellants and the accused No.2 has no knowledge as
to the possession of currency notes as alleged by the
prosecution and even in his statement under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., he has clearly stated that the charge sheet filed against
the accused is with malafide intention and sought to allow the
appeal. On all these grounds learned counsel for appellants
sought to allow this appeal.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
15. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. B.
Lakshman, would submit that the Trial Court has properly
appreciated the material on record and that there are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction
and order on sentence, and sought for dismissal of appeals.
16. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my
consideration.
i. Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused for the offence under Section 489B
and 489C of IPC and Section 120B of IPC?
ii. What order?
17. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: Negative,
Point No.2: As per final order.
Regarding Point No.1:
18. I have examined the materials placed before this
Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.09.2006 at
Byachanahalli within the limits of Kushalnagara Police Station in
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
furtherance of the common object, the accused entered into
criminal conspiracy and agreed to do illegal acts namely
circulation of counterfeit currency notes and on the same day
accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common object
forged and possessed the counterfeit currency notes having
knowledge that the said currency notes were counterfeit notes.
With an intention of being in possession of forged or counterfeit
currency notes and also believing that the same are forged and
counterfeit currency notes, have intended to use and circulate
them as genuine currency notes, thus the accused have
committed the alleged offence. To prove the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and 5
documents were marked as Ex.Ps1 to P5 and 24 material
objects marked as M.O.Nos.1 to 24.
19. This case arises out of the complaint Ex.P2 filed by
Police Inspector, who is examined as PW4-B.R. Lingappa in
which it is stated as under:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: SÉÆÃmÁ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À ZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ
ªÉÆRzÀݪÉÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ªÉƺÀdgÀÄ ¢: 02/09/2006.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. ©.JA.ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï ºÀ¤Ã¥sï C°AiÀiÁ¸ï. ºÀ¤Ã¥sï vÀAzÉ ¥Ëw
©.ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï PÀÄAk ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 38 ªÀµÀð. ªÀÄgÀ ªÁå¥Áj ºÁ°ªÁ¸À
§¸ÀªÉñÀégÀ §qÀªÀuÉ, PÀıÁ®£ÀUÀgÀ. ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ ¨É¼ÁîgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀļÀå
vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ.
2. r.J.C§ÄݯÁè ®wÛÃ¥sï vÀAzÉ JA.UÀ.CºÀäzï, ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 30 ªÀµÀð.
ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆæÃPÀgï PÉ®¸À. ªÁ¸À EA¢gÁ §qÁªÀuÉ,
PÀıÁ®£ÀUÀgÀ, ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ, ¨ÉÃqÀUÉÆlÖ UÁæªÀÄ, PÉÆrè¥ÉÃmÉ.
3. C±ÉÆÃPï C°AiÀiÁ¸ï ¸ÀÄgÉñÀ
4. DP籕
5. ¢Ã¥ÀPï- ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB zÀQët PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÁ°
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.
6. ©.JA.C§Äݯï PÀ¯ÁA vÀAzÉ ¥Ëw ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï PÀÄAk, ¥ÁæAiÀÄ 24
ªÀµÀð, ¨ÉÆæÃPÀgï PÉ®¸À, EA¢gÁ §qÁªÀuÉ, PÀıÁ®£ÀUÀgÀ, ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ
¨É¼ÁîgÉ UÁæªÀÄ, zÀQët PÀ£ÀßqÀ f¯Éè.
CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. MAzÀÄ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ PÀªÀgï£À°è ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ SÉÆÃmÁ
£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (10,000/-)
2. MAzÀÄ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ PÀªÀgï£À°è LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ
SÉÆÃmÁ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (5,000/-)
3. MAzÀÄ j¯ÉÊAiÀÄ£ïì ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï.
4. MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃQAiÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï.
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢:
02/09/2006gÀAzÀÄ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¢AzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ
¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À¢æ DgÉÆæUÀ¼É®ègÀÆ SÉÆÃl£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ £Àqɹ SÉÆÃmÁ£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÀzÀ°è ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ
CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁ£ÀƤUÉ «gÉÆÃzsÀªÁzÀ
C¥ÀgÁzsÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸À¢æ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÆRzÀݪÉÄ zÁR®Ä
ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ
DgÉÆæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀæªÀĸÀASÉå
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
MAzÀjAzÀ £Á®ÌgÀªÀgÉV£À ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02/09/2006gÀ
ªÀĺÀdj£À C¸À®Ä C£ÀÄß F ªÀgÀ¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ M¦à¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ."
20. On the basis of this complaint, case was registered
in Crime No.100/2006 for the offence under Section 489B,
489C and 120B Read with Section 34 of IPC and the FIR was
submitted to the Court on 02.09.2006 at 09.15 pm., as per
Ex.P5. In Ex.P2, it is clearly stated that this complaint was
received on 02.09.2006 at 16.10 hours, same is also mentioned
in FIR Ex.P5 in column No.3B that the information received at
police station dated 02.09.2006 time 16.10 hours. In the
general diary in entry No.1, time is shown as 04.10 pm. The
Ex.P1 is the Seizure mahazar dated 02.09.2006 reveals that
the police have conducted this mahazar between 11.45 am. to
2.15 pm. It is the case of the prosecution that the police have
seized the counterfeit currency notes under mahazar Ex.P1.
21. PW4-B.R. Lingappa has deposed in his evidence
that on 02.09.2006 when he was in the police station, he had
received the information as to trafficking of counterfeit notes in
Kushalnagar from some informants. He left the police station
along with his staff in the departmental vehicle at 9.30 am. and
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
reached Kushalnagar at 11.00 a.m. Though PW4-Police
Inspector has received the information on 02.09.2006 at 09.30
pm., he has not mentioned the same in the station diary and
though the alleged offence are cognizable in nature, however
PW4 has not registered the case prior to seizure of these notes,
though he had received information on 02.09.2006 at 9.30 am.
In view of para No.1194 of Chapter XXVII of Karnataka Police
Manual, information coming under any of the following
headings received at a police station, shall be registered in the
First Information Report book (Form No.126), which is the book
prescribed under Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
(1) cognizable cases including those referred to the
Police by Magistrates for investigation or inquiry
under Sections 156(3) and 202 Criminal
Procedure Code;
(2) fires, missing of cattle and all other occurrences
where there is reason to suspect the commission
of a cognizable offence;
(3) non-cognizable cases endorsed to the Police by
Magistrates for investigation or inquiry under
Sections 155(2) and 202 Criminal Procedure
Code;
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
(4) cases under Sections 41, 102, 107 to 110 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, only one First
Information Report being issued if more than one
person is involved in a case;
(5) reports made to Magistrates with a view to action
being taken under Sections 144 and 145 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(6) cases under Section 182 or 211 IPC when it is
proposed to prosecute the complainant for false
complaint, although not investigated under
Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Note.- Cases received on transfer from other Police
Stations should be re-registered at the receiving
Station.
22. In the case on hand, on the basis of the information
received by PW4, he has not registered the case in first
information report book and submitted the FIR to the Court as
required under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The entry made in Ex.P.5-FIR, is contrary to the evidence
of PW4 for the reason that when PW4 has received the credible
information as to the possession of counterfeit notes by some
person, he ought to have entered the same in the general diary
reference entry at 9.30 am. Instead of that, he has shown in
the FIR that the general dairy reference entry number is
02.09.2006 at 4.10 pm. Before registration of this case, the IO
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
has seized the properties under mahazar-Ex.P1 which is not
permissible under the law and the same is also against the
provisions of Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure and
paragraph No.1194 of the Karnataka Police Manual.
23. Ex.P2 - Complaint reveals that PW.4 - Complainant
has lodged a complaint against accused No.1 - B.M.Mohammed
Haneef, accused No.2 - D.A.Abdul Latheef, accused No.3 -
Ashoka @ Suresh, accused No.4 - Aakash, accused No.5 -
Deepak and accused No.6 - B.M.Abdual Kalam. Accused Nos.3
to 5 are residents of South Canara and accused Nos.1, 2 and 6
are residents of Bellare Village, Kushalnagara. Though PW.4
has lodged a complaint against six accused, the Investigating
Officer has submitted the charge sheet only against accused
Nos.1 and 2. In the charge sheet, the IO has not shown any
reason or information about accused Nos.3 to 6. In view of
Column Nos.6 and 7 of the charge sheet, it is the duty of the IO
to show in the charge sheet that as to steps taken against
accused. If accused Nos.3 to 6 have not committed any
offence, he has to mention the same in the charge sheet that
he has to drop the case against the other accused for want of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
sufficient evidence or he has to file a 'B' report or 'C' report.
The IO has not whispered anything as to not taking steps
against accused Nos.3 to 6 though PW.4 - Police Inspector has
shown the name of accused No.3 to 6 with address. Accused
No.1 has given explanation in his statement under Section 313
of Cr.P.C that he is a timber merchant. Since there is an
enmity between the police inspector and himself, the police
inspector has filed the charge sheet against him.
24. The IO has not properly investigated the case in
accordance with the Cr.P.C., and has mechanically submitted
the charge sheet against accused, which is not sustainable
under law. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record in proper perspective. Accordingly,
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubts. Hence, the Trial Court is not justified in
convicting the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, I answer
point No.1 in the negative.
Regarding Point No.2 :
25. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4900
CRL.A No. 618 of 2013
C/W CRL.A No. 418 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in SC.No.52/2007 dated 05.04.2013 is set aside.
iii) The appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 489-B, 489-C and 120-B of IPC.
iv) The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be returned to them in accordance with law.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Court.
SD/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE LDC,BN,PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38